diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65462-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65462-0.txt | 3992 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 3992 deletions
diff --git a/old/65462-0.txt b/old/65462-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 8bc3c5b..0000000 --- a/old/65462-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,3992 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Rudimentary Architecture for the the Use of -Beginners, by W. H. Leeds - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Rudimentary Architecture for the the Use of Beginners - The Orders and Their Aesthetic Principles - -Author: W. H. Leeds - -Release Date: May 28, 2021 [eBook #65462] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Charlene Taylor and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team - at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RUDIMENTARY ARCHITECTURE FOR THE -THE USE OF BEGINNERS *** - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ - in the original text. - Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. - Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs. - The advertisement for the book “ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS” has - been moved from the beginning of the book to the end of the book. - - - - - RUDIMENTARY - ARCHITECTURE: - FOR - THE USE OF BEGINNERS. - - THE ORDERS, - AND THEIR ÆSTHETIC PRINCIPLES. - - BY - W. H. LEEDS, ESQ. - - London: - JOHN WEALE, - ARCHITECTURAL LIBRARY, 59, HIGH HOLBORN. - - M.DCCC.XLVIII. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - - The Orders generally 3 - - First Order: Ancient Doric 14 - Modern Do. 25 - Tuscan 28 - - Second, or Voluted-capital, Order: Greek Ionic 30 - Roman and Modern 46 - - Third, or Foliaged-capital Order: Corinthian 53 - Composite 62 - - Columniation: Forms and Denominations of Temples and Porticoes 68 - - Intercolumniation 77 - - Glossarial Index 82 - - - - -PREFACE. - - -It is important that an elementary treatise,—more particularly if it -profess to be a popular one, intended for the use of beginners as -well as for professional students,—should not only give rules, but -explain principles also; and unless the latter be clearly defined, -the memory alone is exercised, perhaps fatigued, owing to the former -being unsupported by adequate reasoning. To confine instruction to -bare matter-of-fact is not to simplify, much less to popularize it; -since such mode entirely withholds all that explanation which is so -necessary for a beginner, who will else probably feel more disheartened -than interested. Any study which is presented in its very driest form -by being divested of all that imparts interest to the subject, will -soon become dry and uninteresting in itself, and prejudice may thus be -excited against it at the very outset. - -Those who pursue the profession of Architecture must of course apply -themselves to the study of it technically, and acquire their knowledge -of it, both theoretical and practical, by methods which partake more or -less of routine instruction. Others neither will nor even can do so. -If the public are ever to become acquainted with Architecture,—not, -indeed, with its scientific and mechanical processes of construction, -but in its character of Fine Art and Design,—other methods of study -than those hitherto provided must be furnished, as it appears to -have been assumed that those alone who have been educated to it -professionally can properly understand any thing of even the _Art_ of -Architecture,—a fatal mistake, which, had it clearly perceived its own -interest, the Profession itself would long since have attempted to -remove; it being clearly to the interest of Architects that the public -should acquire a taste and relish for Architecture. - -The study of Architecture, it may be said, has of late years acquired -an increased share of public attention; but it has been too exclusively -confined to the Mediæval and Ecclesiastical styles, which have -consequently been brought into repute and general favour,—a result -which strongly confirms what has just been recommended, namely, the -policy of diffusing architectural taste as widely as possible. As -yet, the taste for Architecture and the study of it, so promoted, has -not been duly extended; for next to that of being acquainted with the -Mediæval, the greatest merit, it would seem, is that of being ignorant -of Classical Architecture and its Orders; which last, however ill they -may have been understood, however greatly corrupted and perverted, -influence and pervade, in some degree, the Modern Architecture of all -Europe, and of all those countries also to which European civilization -has extended. Nevertheless, no popular Manual on the subject of the -Orders has yet been provided,—a desideratum which it is the object of -the following pages to supply. - - W. H. LEEDS. - - - - -RUDIMENTARY ARCHITECTURE. - - - - -THE ORDERS. - - -Although this little treatise is limited to the consideration of -Ancient and Classic Architecture, we may be allowed to explain -briefly what is to be understood by Architecture in its quality of -one of the so-called Fine Arts, if only to guard against confused -and erroneous notions and misconceptions. It will therefore not be -deemed superfluous to state that there is a wide difference between -Building and Architecture,—one which is apparently so very obvious -that it is difficult to conceive how it can have been overlooked, as -it generally has been, by those who have written upon the subject. -Without building we cannot have architecture, any more than without -language we can have literature; but building and language are only the -_matériel_,—neither, the art which works upon that _matériel_, nor the -productions which it forms out of it. Building is _not_ a fine art, -any more than mere speaking or writing is eloquence or poetry. Many -have defined architecture to be the art of building according to rule: -just as well might they define eloquence to be the art of speaking -according to grammar, or poetry the art of composing according to -prosody. Infinitely more correct and rational would it be to say that -architecture is building greatly refined upon,—elevated to the rank -of art by being treated _æsthetically_, that is to say, artistically. -In short, architecture is building with something more than a view -to mere utility and convenience; it is building in such a manner as -to delight the eye by beauty of forms, to captivate the imagination, -and to satisfy that faculty of the mind which we denominate taste. -Further than this we shall not prosecute our remarks on the nature -of architecture, but come at once to that species of it which is -characterized by the Orders. - -In its architectural meaning, the term ORDER refers to the system -of columniation practised by the Greeks and Romans, and is employed -to denote the columns and entablature together; in other words, -both the upright supporting pillars and the horizontal beams and -roof, or _trabeation_, supported by them. These two divisions, -combined, constitute an Order; and so far all Orders are alike, and -might accordingly be reduced to a single one, although, for greater -convenience, they are divided into _three_ leading classes or families, -distinguished as Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. It was formerly the -fashion to speak of the FIVE ORDERS, and also to treat of them as -if each Order were reduced to a positive standard, admitting of -very little deviation, instead of being in reality included in many -subordinate varieties, which, however they may differ from each other, -are all formed according to one common type, and are thereby plainly -distinguished from either of the two other Orders. The vulgar Five -Orders’ doctrine is, it is to be hoped, now altogether exploded; for if -the so-called Tuscan, which is only a ruder and bastard sort of Doric, -and of which no accredited ancient examples remain, is to be received -as a distinct Order, a similar distinction ought to be established -between the original Ancient or Grecian and the derivative Roman and -Italian Doric, which differ from the other quite as much, if not more -so, than the Tuscan does from either. Even the Grecian Doric itself -exhibits many decided varieties, which, though all partaking of one -and the same style, constitute so many Doric Orders. The Pæstum-Doric, -for instance, is altogether dissimilar from the Athenian or that of -the Parthenon. Again, if the Composite is to be received as a distinct -Order from the Corinthian, merely on account of its capital being of a -mixed character, partaking of the Ionic, inasmuch as it has volutes, -and of the Corinthian in its foliage, the Corinthian itself may with -equal propriety be subdivided into as many distinct Orders as there -are distinct varieties; and the more so, as some of the latter vary -from each other very considerably in many other respects than as -regards their capitals. Except that the same general name is applied -to them, there is very little in common between such an example of -the Corinthian or foliaged-capital class as that of the monument of -Lysicrates, and that of the Temple at Tivoli, or between either of -them or those of the Temple of Jupiter Stator and the Pantheon, not to -mention a great many others. Instances of the so-called Composite are, -moreover, so exceedingly few, as not even to warrant our calling it the -_Roman Order_, just as if it had been in general use among the Romans -in every period of their architecture. With far greater propriety might -the Corinthian itself, or what we now so designate, be termed the Roman -Order, being not only the one chiefly used by that people, but also the -one which they fairly appropriated to themselves, by entering into the -spirit of it, and treating it with freedom and artistic feeling. In -fact, we are indebted far more to Roman than to Grecian examples for -our knowledge of the Corinthian; and it is upon the former that the -moderns have modelled their ideal of that Order. - -What has been said with regard to striking diversity in the several -examples of the Corinthian, holds equally good as to those of the -Ionic Order, in which we have to distinguish not only between Roman -and Grecian Ionic, but further, between Hellenic and Asiatic Ionic. -Nor is that all: there is a palpable difference between those examples -whose capitals have a _necking_ to them, and those which have none,—a -difference quite as great, if not greater, than that which is -recognized as sufficient to establish for the Composite the title of -a distinct Order from the Corinthian; inasmuch as the necking greatly -enlarges the proportion of the whole capital, and gives increased -importance to it. The Ionic capital further admits of a species of -variation which cannot possibly take place in those of either of the -other two Orders: it may have either _two faces_ and two baluster -sides, or four equal and similar sides,—the volutes being, in the -latter case, turned diagonally, the mode chiefly practised by the -Romans; but by the Greeks, and that not always, in the capitals at the -ends of a portico, by placing the diagonal volute at the angle only, so -as to obtain two outer faces for the capital, one in front, the other -on the ‘return’ or flank of the portico. - -It is therefore unnecessary to say, that to divide the Orders into -_Five_, as has been done by all modern writers, until of late years, -and to establish for each of them one fixed, uniform character, is -altogether a mistake; and not only a mere mistake as regards names and -other distinctions, but one which has led to a plodding, mechanical -treatment of the respective Orders themselves, nothing being left -for the Architect to do, so far as the Order which he employs is -concerned, than merely to follow the example which he has selected,—in -other words, merely to _copy_ instead of _designing_, by _imitating_ -his model with artistic freedom and spirit. Our view of the matter, -on the contrary, greatly simplifies and rationalizes the doctrine of -the Orders, and facilitates the study of them by clearing away the -contracted notions and prejudices which have been permitted to encumber -it; and owing to which, mere conventional rules, equally petty and -pedantic, have been substituted for intelligent guiding maxims and -principles. - -Having thus far briefly explained the rationale of the Orders with -regard to the division of them into three leading _classes_, each of -which, distinct from the other two, yet comprises many varieties or -_species_,—which, however much they may differ with respect to minor -distinctions, all evidently belong to one and the same style, or what -we call Order,—we have now to consider their constituent parts, that -is, those which apply to every Order alike. Hitherto it has been usual -with most writers to treat of an Order as consisting of three principal -parts or divisions, viz. pedestal, column, and entablature. The first -of these, however, cannot by any means be regarded as an integral part -of an Order. So far from being an essential, it is only an _accidental_ -one,—one, moreover, of Roman invention, and applicable only under -particular circumstances. The pedestal no more belongs to an Order -than an attic or _podium_ placed above the entablature. In the idea -of an Order we do not include what is extraneous to the Order itself: -it makes no difference whether the columns stand immediately upon the -ground or floor, or are raised above it. They almost invariably are -so raised, because, were the columns to stand immediately upon the -ground or a mere pavement, the effect would be comparatively mean and -unsatisfactory; the edifice would hardly seem to stand firmly, and, for -want of apparent footing, would look as if it had sunk into the ground, -or the soil had accumulated around it. With the view, therefore, of -increasing height for the whole structure, and otherwise enhancing -its effect, the Greeks placed their temples upon a bold substructure, -composed of _gradini_ or deep steps, or upon some sort of continuous -_stylobate_; either of which modes is altogether different from, and -affords no _precedent_ for, the pedestal of modern writers. And here -it may be remarked, that of the dignity imparted to a portico by a -stylobate forming an ascent up to it in front, we have a fine example -in that of St. George’s Church, Bloomsbury, which so far imitates the -celebrated Maison Carrée at Nismes. Nevertheless, essential as some -sort of stylobate is to the edifice itself, it does not properly belong -to it, any more than that equally essential—in fact more indispensable -part—the roof. - -It is not without some regret that we abandon, as wholly untenable, -the doctrine of the pedestal being an integral part of an Order: it -would be so much more agreeable to say that the entire Order consists -of three principal divisions, just the same as each of the divisions -themselves. As regards the entire structure, such triplicity, that of -‘beginning, middle, and end,’ was observed. For ‘beginning,’ there was -substructure, however denominated, or whether expressly denominated at -all, or not; for ‘middle,’ there were the columns; and for ‘end’ or -completion, the entablature. For the whole of a structure, there is -or ought to be such ‘beginning, middle, and end;’ but from the Order -itself we exclude one of them, as not being dependent upon it either -for character or treatment. - -The pedestal being discarded as something apart from the Order itself, -the latter is reduced to the two grand divisions of column and -entablature, each of which is subdivided into three distinct parts or -members, viz. the column, into _base_, _shaft_, and _capital_; the -entablature, into _architrave_, _frieze_, and _cornice_; so that the -latter is to the entablature what the capital is to the column, namely, -its crowning member,—that which completes it to the eye. Yet, although -the above divisions of column and entablature hold good with regard to -the general idea of an Order, the primitive Greek or Doric one does not -answer to what has just been said, inasmuch as it has no base,—that -is, no mouldings which distinctly mark the foot of the column as a -separate and ornamented member. Hence it will perhaps be thought that -this Order is not so complete as the others, since it wants that member -below which corresponds with the capital above. Still the Grecian -Doric column is complete in itself: it needs no base,—in fact, does -not admit of such addition without forfeiting much of its present -character, and thus becoming something different. Were there a distinct -base, the mouldings composing it could not very well exceed what is -now the lower diameter or actual foot of the column; because, were it -to do so, either the base would become too bulky in proportion to the -capital, or the latter must be increased so as to make it correspond -in size with the enlarged lower extremity. Even then that closeness -of _intercolumniation_ (spacing of the columns), which contributes so -much to the majestic solidity that characterizes the genuine Doric, -could not be observed; unless the columns were put considerably further -apart, the bases would scarcely allow sufficient passage between them. -The only way of escaping from these objections and difficulties is by -making the shaft of the column considerably more slender, so that what -was before the measure of the lower diameter of the shaft itself, -becomes that of the base. That can be done—has been done, at least -something like it; but the result is an attenuated Roman or Italian -Doric, differing altogether in proportions from the original type or -order. The shaft no longer tapers visibly upwards, or, what is the same -thing, expands below. - -Before we come to speak of the Orders severally and more in detail, -there are some other matters which require to be noticed; one of which -is the origin of the Greek system of columniation, or the prototype -upon which it was modelled. Following Vitruvius, nearly all writers -have agreed to recognize in the columnar style of the ancients the -primitive timber hut, as furnishing the first hints for and rudiments -of it. Such theory, it must be admitted, is sufficiently plausible, if -only because it can be made to account very cleverly for many minor -circumstances. Unfortunately, it does not account at all for, or rather -is in strong contradiction to, the character of the earliest extant -monuments of Greek architecture. Timber construction would have led to -very different proportions and different taste. Had the prototype or -model been of that material, slenderness and lightness, rather than -ponderosity and solidity, would have been aimed at; and the progressive -changes in the character of the Orders would have been reversed, since -the earliest of them all would also have been the lightest of them -all. The principles of stone construction have so evidently dictated -and determined the forms and proportions of the original Doric style, -as to render the idea of its being fashioned upon a model in the other -material little better than an absurd though time-honoured fiction. -Infinitely more probable is it, that the Greeks derived their system of -architecture from the Egyptians; because, much as it differs from that -of the latter people with regard to taste and matters of ornamentation, -it partakes very largely of the same _constitutional_ character. At any -rate the doctrine of a timber origin applies as well to the Egyptian -as to the Hellenic or Grecian style. Indeed, if there be any thing at -all that favours such doctrine, it is, that construction with blocks -of stone would naturally have suggested _square_ pillars instead of -round ones; the latter requiring much greater labour and skill to -prepare them than the others. But, as their pyramids and obelisks -sufficiently testify, the most prodigal expenditure of labour was not -at all regarded by the Egyptians. That, it will perhaps be said, still -does not account for the adoption of the circular or cylindrical form -for columns. We have therefore to look for some sufficiently probable -motive for the adoption of that form; and we think that we find it in -_convenience_. In order to afford due support to the massive blocks -of stone placed upon them, the columns were not only very bulky in -proportion to their height, but were placed so closely together, not -only in the fronts of porticoes, but also within them, that they would -scarcely have left any open space. Such inconvenience was accordingly -remedied by making the pillars round instead of square. Should such -conjectural reason for the adoption of circular columns be rejected, -it is left to others to propound a more satisfactory one, or to abide, -as many probably will do, by the old notion of columns being so shaped -in order to imitate the stems of trees. It is enough that whatever -accounts for the columns being round in Egyptian architecture, accounts -also for their being the same in that of the Greeks. - -Among other fanciful notions entertained with regard to columns and -their proportions, is that of the different orders of columns being -proportioned in accordance with the human figure. Thus the Doric -column is said to represent a robust male figure, and those of the -two other Orders, female ones,—the Ionic, a matron; the Corinthian, a -less portly specimen of feminality. Now, so far from there being any -general similitude between a Grecian Doric column and a robust man, -their proportions are directly opposite,—the greater diameter of the -column being at its foot, while that of the man is at his shoulders. -The one tapers _upwards_, the other _downwards_. If the human figure -and its proportions had been considered, columns would, in conformity -with such type, have been wider at the top of their shafts than below, -and would have assumed the shape of a terminus,[1] or of a mummy-chest. -With regard to the other two Orders, it is sufficient to observe, -that if so borrowed at all, the idea must have been preposterous. We -happen to have a well-known example of statues or human figures, and -those, moreover, female ones, being substituted for columns beneath -an entablature; and so far are they from confirming the pretended -analogy between the Ionic column and the proportions of a female, that -they decidedly contradict it, those figures being greatly bulkier in -their general mass than the bulkiest and stoutest columns of the Doric -Order. At any rate, one hypothesis might satisfy those who will not be -satisfied without some fancy of the kind, because two together do not -agree: if columns originated in the imitation of stems of trees, we can -dispense with the imitation of men and women, and _vice versá_. - -[1] The species of statue so called, and consisting of the upper part -of a human figure growing out of a pedestal which tapers downwards, and -appears to enclose the rest of the body. - -Some may think that it is hardly worth while to notice such mere -fancies; yet it is surely desirable to attempt to get rid of them by -exposing their absurdity, more especially as they still continue to -be gravely brought forward and handed down traditionally by those -who write upon the Orders, or who, if they do not actually _write_, -repeat what others have written. It is worth while to clear away, if -possible, and that, too, at the very outset of the study, erroneous -opinions, prejudices, and misconceptions. We do not pretend to explain -and trace, step by step, the progress of the Doric Order, and of -the columnar system of the Greeks, from their first rudiments and -formation. We have only the results of such progressive development -or formation; of the actual formation itself we neither know nor can -now ever know any thing. The utmost that can now be done is to take -the results themselves, and from them to reason backwards to causes -and motives. Adopting such a course, we may first observe, that there -is a very striking and characteristic difference between Egyptian -and Grecian taste and practice in one respect: in the former style -the columns are invariably _cylindrical_, or nearly so,—in the other -they are _conical_, that is, taper upwards, and in some instances so -much so, that were they prolonged to double their height, they would -be almost perfect cones, and terminate like a spire. This tapering -greatly exceeds that of the stems of trees, taking for their stem the -trunk, from above which the branches begin to shoot out. It appears -to have been adopted for purely artistic reasons, certainly not for -the sake of any positive advantage, since the diminution of the shaft, -and the great contraction of the diameter just below the capital, must -rather decrease than at all add to the strength of the column. What, -then, are the artistic qualities so obtained? We reply,—variety and -contrast, and the expression of strength without offensive heaviness. -The sudden or very perceptible diminution of the shaft,—it must be -borne in mind that our remarks refer exclusively to the original -Greek style or Doric Order,—produces a double effect; it gives the -column an expression of greater stability than it otherwise would, -combined with comparative lightness. What is _diminution_ upwards, is -also _expansion_ downwards; and similar difference and contrast take -place also with respect to the intercolumns, although in a reverse -manner, such intercolumns being wider at top than at bottom. So far the -principle of contrast here may be said to be twofold, although one of -the two sorts of contrast inevitably results from the other. Were it -not for the great diminution of the shaft, the columns would appear to -be too closely put together, and the intercolumns much too narrow, that -is, according, at least, to the mode of intercolumniation practised by -the Greeks in most of their structures in the Doric style; whereas such -offensive appearance was avoided by the shaft being made considerably -smaller at top than at bottom,—consequently the intercolumns wider -above than below, in the same ratio; so that columns which at their -bases were little more than one diameter apart, became more than two, -that is, two upper diameters apart at the top of their shafts, or the -neckings of their capitals. In this style every thing was calculated to -produce a character of majestic simplicity,—varying, however, or rather -progressing, from heaviness and stern severity to comparative lightness -of proportions,—for examples differ greatly in that respect: in some -of the earlier ones the columns are not more than four diameters in -height, while in some of the later they are upwards of six, which -last-mentioned proportions not only amount to slenderness, but also -destroy others. The capital itself may be proportioned the same as -before relatively to the diameter of the column, but it cannot possibly -bear the same ratio as before to its height. The average proportions -for that member are one diameter for its width at its abacus, and -half a diameter for its depth: consequently, if the entire column be -only four diameters in height, the capital is ⅛th of it, or equal to -⅐th of the shaft; whereas, if the column be six or more diameters, -the capital becomes only ¹/₁₂th of the column, or even less, so that -the latter appears thin and attenuated, and the other member too -small and insignificant. Yet though the original Greek Order or style -exhibits considerable diversity with respect to mere proportions, it -was otherwise very limited in its powers of expression, and moreover -something quite distinct from the nominal Doric of the Romans and the -Italians, as will be evident when we come to compare the latter with it. - -Before we enter upon this part of our subject, and previous to an -examination of the details of the several Orders, it should be observed -that the diameter, that is, the _lower_ diameter of the column, is -the standard by which all the other parts and members of an Order are -measured. The diameter is divided into 60 _minutes_, or into two halves -or _modules_ of 30 minutes each; and those minutes are again subdivided -into parts or _seconds_ when extreme accuracy of measurement is -required; which two last are noted thus: 5′ 10″, for instance, meaning -five minutes and ten seconds. - - -DORIC ORDER. - -[Illustration] - -It has been already observed, that in the genuine Doric the column -consists of only shaft and capital, which latter is composed of -merely an _echinus_ and _abacus_, the first being a circular convex -moulding, spreading out beneath the other member, which, although a -very important one, is no more than a plain and shallow square block -upon which the architrave rests, not only firmly and safely, but so -that the utmost expression of security is obtained, and pronounced -emphatically to the eye. Such expression arises from the abacus being -larger than the _soffit_ or under surface of the architrave itself; -and as the former corresponds, or nearly so, with the lower diameter -of the shaft, it serves to make evident at a glance that the foot of -the column is greater than the soffit of the architrave placed upon -the columns. Thus, as measured at either extremity, the column is -greater than the depth or thickness of the architrave, and projects -beyond the architrave and general plane of the entablature. Now this -would produce a most unsightly effect were the columns of the same, or -nearly the same diameter throughout. In such case they would appear not -only too large, but most clumsily so, and the entablature would have -the look of being set back in the most awkward and most unaccountable -manner. Instead of which, the architrave, and consequently the general -plane of the whole entablature, actually overhangs the upper part -of the shaft, in a plane about midway between the smallest diameter -of the column, just below the capital and the face of the abacus. -Even this, the overhanging of the entablature, would be not a little -offensive to the eye, were the abacus no larger than the architrave is -deep; whereas, being larger, it projects forwarder than the face of -the architrave, thereby producing a powerful degree of one species of -æsthetic effect, namely, contrast,—and if contrast, of course variety -also; for though there may be variety without contrast, there cannot -be contrast without variety. Another circumstance to be considered is, -that were not such projection beyond the face of the architrave given -to the abacus, that and the rest of the capital could not correspond -with the foot of the shaft, and thus equalize the two extremities of -the entire column. As now managed, all contradictions are reconciled, -and the different sorts of contrast are made to contribute to and -greatly enhance general harmony. In the outline of the column we -perceive, first, contraction,—then expansion, and that in both -directions,—for in like manner as the column diminishes upwards and the -capital expands from it, its shaft may be said to expand and increase -in bulk downwards, so as to agree with the abacus or upper extremity. - -Though a few exceptions to the contrary exist, the shaft of the Doric -column was generally what is technically called _fluted_, that is, -cut into a series of channels touching each other, and thus forming -a series of ridges upon its surfaces,—a mode of decoration, we may -observe, altogether the reverse of that which was practised by the -Egyptians, some of whose columns exhibit, instead of channels or -hollows, a series of convex mouldings that give them the appearance of -being composed of very slender pillars or rods bound together. Many -have attempted, with perhaps pains-taking but idle inquiry, to account -for the origin of such fluting or channeling, supposing, among other -things, that it was derived from the cracks and crevices in the stems -of trees, or from the streakings occasioned by rain on the shafts of -the columns. Most perverse ingenuity! We do not find any thing like -such marked streakings on columns even in this rainy English climate of -ours; much less would they have been at all visible in such a climate -as that of Greece. Others have supposed that these channels were at -first intended to hold spears! that is, to prevent them from slipping -and falling down when set up against a column; than which idea it is -hardly possible for the utmost stretch of ingenuity to go farther in -absurdity. - -We, who are less ambitious, content ourselves with supposing that the -fluting of columns was introduced and adopted principally for the sake -of effect. If other motives for doing so existed, we know them not, -nor need we care, since study of effect alone suffices to account -for such mode of decoration. By multiplying its surfaces, it gives -variety to the shaft of the column, and prevents it from showing as -a mere mass. With the same, or very nearly the same bulk and degree -of solidity as before, it causes the column to appear much less heavy -than it otherwise would do, and contributes to a pleasing diversity -of light and shade, reminding us of Titian’s ‘bunch of grapes.’ Being -upon a curved surface, the channels serve to render the circularity -of the column more apparent, since, though they are all of the same -width, they show to the eye narrower and narrower on each side of the -centre one,—no matter in what direction the column is viewed. Here -then we have variety combined with uniformity, and a certain apparent -or optical irregularity with what we know to be perfect regularity. -In the Doric Order the number of channels is either sixteen or -twenty,—afterwards increased in the other Orders to twenty-four; for -they are invariably of an even number, capable of being divided by -four; so that there shall always be a centre flute on each side of the -column, that is, in a line with the middle of each side of the abacus. -Doric flutings are much broader and shallower than those of the Ionic -or Corinthian Orders;—broader for two reasons,—first, because they -are fewer in number; and secondly, because there are no _fillets_ or -plain spaces left between them upon the surface of the shaft. Their -proportionably much greater shallowness, again, may be accounted for -equally well: were the channels deeper, not only would they seem to -cut into the shaft too much, and weaken it, but also produce much too -strong shadows; and another inconvenience would be occasioned, for -the _arrises_ or ridges between the channels would become very sharp -and thin, and liable to be injured. The mode of fluting Doric columns -with mere arrises between the channels, instead of _fillets_, has -been retained by the moderns as characteristic of the Order; but as -the Order has been treated by them, it is little better than a mere -distinction, with very little regard to general character. In the -original Doric almost every part is marked by breadth, or by flatness, -or by sharpness. There are no curved mouldings or surfaces, except the -_cymatium_ of the cornice and the _echinus_ of the capital, which last -is generally kept exceedingly flat. The breadth and shallowness of the -channels, and the flat curves in which they commence and terminate, are -therefore in perfect keeping with the style in other respects; so also -are the sharp arrises or ridges between the channels or flutings on the -surface of the shaft, they being expressive of a severe simplicity. -The same remark applies to the horizontal annular narrower channels or -incisions immediately beneath the echinus of the capital, and lower -down, which last are just the reverse of the projecting astragal -or convex moulding given to the Doric capital by the moderns. Why -such horizontal channels or grooves should have been cut in the very -thinnest and weakest part of the column, where they diminish instead -of adding to strength, it is not easy to say, except that they were -merely for the sake of effect,—of producing shadow, and increasing the -proportions of the capital, to which they seem to belong. We leave -others, should any be so disposed, to object that the lowermost groove -or grooves, as the case may be, give the capital the appearance of -being a separate piece, merely joined on to the shaft without such -joining being concealed. Looking at it differently, we will rather say -that such groove is intended to mark to the eye the commencement of the -capital, the portion above it of the shaft being thereby converted into -the _hypotrachelium_ or necking of the capital itself, which is thus -enlarged in appearance without being actually increased, and rendered -unduly heavy. It is not, however, every example of the Order that has -such necking: while in some the groove separating the capital from -the shaft is diminished to a mere line,—which looks like a joining -not intended to show itself,—in others it is omitted altogether. With -respect to the _echinus_, we have little more to remark than that its -office—which it performs admirably—is, by expanding out, to connect the -diminished upper end of the column with the overhanging abacus; and the -former being circular and the latter square, but adapted to each other -in size, a beautiful combination is produced of a circle inscribed -within a square; and the result is variety, contrast, and harmony. -In its profile or _section_,—by which latter term is understood the -contour of any moulding or other member,—it is usually very flat, -little more than a portion of a cone (turned downwards), with scarcely -any perceptible degree of convexity, except just beneath the abacus, -where it is suddenly rounded and diminished, so that the abacus does -not seem to press upon or compress it too much. - -We arrive now at the entablature, the first or lowermost division -of which, the architrave, otherwise called by the Greek name of -_epistylium_ (from ἐπι, upon, and στύλος, column), is no more than -a plain surface whose height, including the _tænia_ or fillet which -finishes it and separates it from the frieze, is equal to the -upper diameter of the column. Such, at least, may be considered -its standard proportion, that by means of which it conforms to and -harmonizes with the column itself. The second or middle division of the -entablature, namely, the frieze, constitutes in the Doric style a very -characteristic feature of the Order, being invariably distinguished by -its triglyphs and metopes. The former of these are upright channeled -blocks, affixed to or projecting from the frieze, and are supposed to -have been originally intended to represent the ends of inner beams laid -upon the architrave transversely to it. The _metopes_, on the contrary, -are not actually architectural members, but merely the intervals or -spaces between the triglyphs; so that without the latter there could -not be the others, because it is the triglyphs which produce the -metopes. With slight variations in different examples, the frieze is -of about the same height as the architrave,—a trifle less, rather than -more; and the average proportion for the breadth of the triglyphs is -the mean diameter of the column, or that taken midway of the shaft. The -face of the triglyph has two _glyphs_ or channels carved upon it, and -its edges beveled off into a half channel, thus making what is equal -to a third glyph, whence the name triglyph, or _three-channeled_. We -have till now reserved speaking of what, although it shows itself upon -the architrave, belongs to the triglyph, and is in continuation of it, -namely, the fillet and _guttæ_ attached to the tænia of the architrave -immediately beneath each triglyph, and corresponding with it in width. -These small conical guttæ or _drops_ are supposed, rather whimsically, -by some to represent drops of rain that have trickled down the channels -of the triglyph, and settled beneath the ledge of the architrave. -Others suppose them to have been intended to indicate the heads of -nails, screws, or studs. Leaving all such suppositions to those who -have a taste for them, we will be satisfied with discerning artistic -intention and æsthetic effect. That member of the triglyph,—for such -we must be allowed to consider it,—is of great value, serving, as it -does, to impart somewhat of decoration to the architrave, to break -the monotony of the otherwise uninterrupted line of the tænia, and -to connect, to the eye at least, the architrave and frieze together. -Although in a much fainter degree, the architrave is thus made to -exhibit the same system of placing ornamental members at regular -distances from each other, as is so energetically pronounced in the -frieze itself. If it be asked why the same, or something equivalent to -it, was not extended to the architrave in the other Orders, our answer -is, because a similar motive for doing it does not exist. The triglyph -being suppressed in the Ionic and Corinthian frieze, the accompanying -guttæ beneath it were of necessity omitted also, otherwise they would -have made evident that the triglyph ought to have been shown likewise. -There is, indeed, one example, the monument of Thrasyllus, of a Grecian -Doric entablature, whose frieze is without triglyphs (wreaths being -substituted for them), and the guttæ are nevertheless retained. But -how?—instead of being placed at intervals, as if there were triglyphs, -they are continued uninterruptedly throughout, so that the idea of -triglyph disappears; besides which, the example here referred to is -altogether so anomalous and exceptional as to be not so much a specimen -of the Doric _Order_ as of the Doric _style_, modified according to -particular circumstances; on which account it is highly valuable, since -we may learn from it that where peculiar circumstances required—at -least admitted of peculiar treatment, the Greeks did not scruple to -avail themselves of the liberty so afforded. - -With regard to the arrangement of the triglyphs, one is placed over -every column, and one or more intermediately over every _intercolumn_ -(or space between two columns), at such distance from each other that -the metopes are square; in other words, the height of the triglyph is -the measure for the distance between it and the next one. In the best -Greek examples of the Order there is only a single triglyph over each -intercolumn, whence that mode is sometimes called _monotriglyphic_ or -single-triglyphed intercolumniation; which is the closest of all, the -distance from axis to axis of the columns being limited to the space -occupied above by two metopes and two triglyphs, _i. e._ one whole -triglyph and two halves of triglyphs. In such intercolumniation the -number of the triglyphs is double the number of the columns, minus one. -Further, it is evident that as there must be a triglyph over every -column, the triglyphs must regulate the intercolumniation. The width -of the intercolumns cannot be at all less than the proportion above -mentioned; neither can it be increased, except by introducing a second -triglyph,—and if a second triglyph, a second metope also, over each -intercolumn, thus augmenting the distance between the columns to half -as much again, which becomes, perhaps, too much, the difference between -that and the other mode being considerably more than the diameter of a -column; whereas in the other Orders the intercolumns may be made, at -pleasure, either a little wider or a little narrower than usual. One -peculiarity of the Grecian Doric frieze is, that the end triglyphs, -instead of being, like the others, in the same axis or central line as -the columns beneath, are placed quite up to the edge or outer angle -of the frieze. In itself this is, perhaps, rather a defect than the -contrary, although intended to obviate another defect,—that of a half -metope or blank space there,—for it produces not only some degree of -irregularity, but of æsthetic inconsistency also, the triglyph so -placed being, as it were, on one side of, instead of directly over the -column. One advantage attending it is, that the extreme intercolumns -become in consequence narrower than the others by half a triglyph, and -accordingly a greater degree and expression of strength is given to the -extremities of a portico. - -The Doric _Cornice_.—The third and last division of the entablature -which remains to be considered is, although exceedingly simple, -strongly characteristic, and boldly marked. With regard to its -proportions, it is about a third or even more than a third less -than the other two, and may itself be divided into three principal -parts or members, viz. the _corona_, with the _mutules_ and other -_bed-mouldings_, as they are termed, beneath it and the _epitithedas_ -above it. The mutules are thin plates or shallow blocks attached to -the under side or soffit of the corona, over each triglyph and each -metope, with the former of which they correspond in breadth, and their -soffits or under-surfaces are wrought into three rows of _guttæ_ or -drops, conical or otherwise shaped, each row consisting of six guttæ, -or the same number as those beneath each triglyph. Nothing can be more -artistically disposed: in like manner, as an intermediate triglyph is -placed over every two columns, so is an intermediate mutule over every -two triglyphs. The smaller members increase in number as they decrease -in size; and in the upper and finishing part of the Order, the eye -is led on horizontally, instead of being confined vertically to the -lines indicated by the columns below. The corona is merely a boldly -projecting flat member, not greatly exceeding in its depth the abacus -of the capital; in some examples it is even less. The epitithedas, -or uppermost member of the cornice, is sometimes a cymatium, or -_wavy_ moulding, convex below and concave above; sometimes an echinus -moulding, similar in profile to the echinus of the capital. The cornice -may be said to be to the entablature, and indeed to the whole Order, -what the capital is to the column,—completing and concluding it in a -very artistic manner. By its projection and the shadow which it casts, -the cornice gives great spirit and relief to the entablature, which -would else appear both heavy and unfinished. In the horizontal cornice -beneath a pediment, the epitithedas is omitted, and shows itself only -in the sloping or _raking_ cornices, as they are called, along the -sides of the pediment. - -[Illustration] - -_Antæ._—Pilasters, as well as columns, belong to an Order, and in -modern practice are frequently substituted indifferently for columns, -where the latter would be _engaged_ or attached to a wall. In Grecian -architecture, however, the _antæ_,—as they are thus termed, to -distinguish them from other pilasters,—are never so employed. They are -never placed consecutively, or in any series, but merely as a facing at -the end of a projecting wall, as where a portico is enclosed at each -end by the walls forming the sides of the structure, in which case it -is described as a portico _in antis_. Although they accompany columns, -and in the case just mentioned range in the same line with them, antæ -differ from them, inasmuch as their shafts are not diminished; for -which reason their faces are not made so wide as the diameter of the -columns, neither are their capitals treated in the same manner, as both -shaft and capital would be exceedingly clumsy. The expanding echinus -of the column capital is therefore suppressed, and one or more very -slightly projecting _faciæ_, the uppermost of which is frequently -hollowed out below, so as to form in section what is called the ‘bird’s -beak’ moulding. In a portico _in antis_ the want of greater congruity -between the antæ and the columns is made up for by various contrasts. -Flatness of surface is opposed to rotundity, vertical lines to inclined -ones (those of the outline and flutings of the column), and uniformity, -in regard to light, to the mingled play of light and shade on the -shafts of the columns. Instead of attempting to keep up similarity -as far as possible, the Greeks made a studied distinction between -antæ and columns, not only in those respects which have been noted -above, but carried difference still further, inasmuch as they never -channeled the faces of their antæ, whereas the moderns flute their -pilasters as well as columns. Hardly was such marked distinction a mere -arbitrary fashion; it is more rational to suppose that it was adopted -for sufficient æsthetic reasons and motives; nor is it difficult to -account, according to them, for the omission of channeling on the -shafts of antæ. Upon a plain surface the _arrises_ between the channels -would have occasioned an unpleasing harshness and dryness of effect, as -is the case with fluted Doric pilasters, and would have been attended -with monotony also, the lines being all vertical, and consequently -parallel to each other; whereas in the column, the channels diminish -in breadth upwards, and all the lines are inclined, and instead of -being parallel, converge towards each other, so that were the shaft -sufficiently prolonged, they would at last meet in a common point -or apex similar to that of a spire. Owing to this convergency, the -lines on one side of a vertical line dividing the column, or rather a -geometrical drawing or _elevation_ of it, into two halves, instead of -being parallel, are opposed to each other, like the opposite sides of -an isosceles triangle; and this opposition produces _correspondence_. - -PEDIMENT.—In addition to what has been already said relative to this -very important feature of Grecian architecture, some further remarks -will not be at all superfluous. In the first place, then, the pediment -proves to us most convincingly that a figure which, considered merely -in itself, is generally regarded as neither beautiful nor applicable -to architectural purposes, may be rendered eminently beautiful and -satisfactory to the eye. Reasoning abstractedly, it would seem -that if such figure is to be made use of at all, the _equilateral_ -triangle would recommend itself in preference to any other, as being -obviously the most perfect and regular of all triangles. For a -pediment, however, such form would be truly monstrous; and yet even the -equilateral triangle, or even one of still loftier pitch, may, under -some circumstances, become a pleasing architectural form, as we may -perceive from pyramids and Gothic gables. How, then, is this seeming -inconsistency or contradiction to be explained? It explains itself, -if we merely reflect, as we ought to do, that in architecture, forms -and proportions are beautiful not _positively_ but only _relatively_. -Were it not so, the same forms and proportions would be beautiful, -and equally so under all circumstances, without any regard to purpose -or propriety. It must also be taken into account that habit, custom, -association of ideas, or prejudice, greatly influence our notions of -architectural beauty. We are _prejudiced_ in favour of the low Greek -pediment, if for no other reason, because it is sanctioned by Greek -authority and is according to Greek precedent. In all probability, had -that people employed high-pitched instead of low-pitched pediments, -we should, without inquiring further, have admired the former rather -than the latter. What we have now to inquire is, why lowness of pitch -for the pediment best agrees with the Greek system and its principles. -Notwithstanding that the pediment forms no part of the Order, since -the latter is complete without it,—and in fact the pediment occurs -only at the ends of a sloping roof,—the pediment must, when it does -appear, be in accordance with the Order itself, or that front of the -building which is beneath the pediment; consequently the pitch of the -latter must be regulated by circumstances,—must be either greater -or less, according to the proportions of the front itself. So far -from being increased in the same ratio, the wider the front,—the -greater the number of columns at that end of the building,—the lower -must the pediment be kept, because the front itself becomes of _low -proportions_ in the same degree as it is extended or widened. Under all -circumstances, the height of the pediment must remain pretty nearly -the same, and be determined, not by width or horizontal extent, but -by the _height_ of what is beneath it. The height of the pediment or -its _tympanum_ (the triangular surface included between the horizontal -cornice of the Order, and the two _raking_ cornices of the pediment) -never greatly exceeds the depth or height of the entablature; for were -it to do so, the pediment would become too large and heavy, would -take off from the importance of the Order, and appear to load its -entablature with an extraneous mass which it was never calculated to -bear. - -We hardly need observe that it was, if not a constant, a very usual -practice with the Ancients to fill in the whole of the tympanum of the -pediment with sculpture, and also the metopes of the frieze, by which -the latter, instead of being mere blank spaces between the triglyphs, -were converted into highly ornamental features. - - -MODERN DORIC. - -Of the Roman and the modern varieties of this Order we shall treat -much more briefly, because our remarks may be confined to comparison -and the notice of differences. Certain it is that the original -character of the Order was gradually lost sight of more and more, till -at length it was converted into something quite different from its -Greek type. The few circumstances in which Modern Doric, as we may -call it, resembles the original one, are little more than the mode of -fluting with _arrises_ instead of fillets,—the general form of capital -composed of echinus and abacus, and the triglyphs upon the frieze. -The differences are, if not greater, far more numerous. The column -becomes greatly elongated, being increased from six to eight diameters. -The sunk annulets beneath the capital were omitted or converted into -fillets; the capital was increased in depth by a distinct necking -being given to it, divided from the shaft by a projecting moulding, -which in that situation is called an _astragal_. The abacus, too, is -made shallower, and has mouldings added to it. One of the greatest -changes of all, as far as the column is concerned, is the addition -of a base to it, which is partly both consequence and cause of the -greater slenderness of the shaft; for were the shaft not reduced in -diameter,—which is the same as being made more diameters in height,—the -base added to it would enlarge the foot of the column: so again, on the -other hand, were only the shaft decreased in thickness, without any -mouldings for a base being added to it, that end of the column would -be as much too small. The base best adapted to the Order, as being the -most simple, though not uniformly made use of, is that which consists -of merely a _torus_, or large circular and convex-sided block, and -two shallow fillets above it. It may here further be noticed, that -besides the base itself, or the base _proper_, the moderns have, for -all the Orders alike, adopted an additional member, namely, a rather -deep and square block, which, when so applied, is termed a _plinth_; -and beneath this is frequently placed another and deeper one, called -a _sub-plinth_. Contrary as this is to the practice of the Greeks, it -is by no means an unwarrantable license, for had no greater liberty -been taken with the Orders and the modes of applying them, they would -have remained comparatively quite pure. In apology for the plinth -beneath a base, it may be said to produce a pleasing agreement between -both extremities of the column,—in the Doric Order at least, where -the square plinth beneath the circular torus of the base answers to -the square abacus (which is itself another plinth, though differently -named) placed upon the circular echinus of the capital. - -Passing over several particulars which our confined limits will not -permit us to notice, we may remark, that if greatly altered, not to say -corrupted, from its primitive character, the Doric Order, as treated -by the moderns, has been assimilated to the other Orders,—so much so -as, though still differing from them in its details, to belong to the -same general style. One advantage, if no other, of which is, that it -may, should occasion require, be used along with the other Orders; -whereas the original or Grecian Doric is so obstinately inflexible -that it cannot be made to combine with any thing else, or to bend -to modern purposes. So long as a mere portico or colonnade, and -nothing more, is required, backed by a wall unperforated by windows, -its character and characteristic system of intercolumniation can be -kept up, but no longer; or if it is to be done, it is more than has -yet been accomplished. Nothing could be more preposterous, or show -greater want of proper æsthetic feeling, or greater disregard of -æsthetic principles, than the attempt to combine, as was done by Nash -in the Park façade of Buckingham Palace, a Grecian Doric Order with a -Corinthian one. So totally irreconcileable are the two _styles_, that -it was like placing Tudor or florid Perpendicular Gothic upon the early -Lancet style. Besides, in that instance, the Doric, though affecting -to be Greek, was depravated most offensively, as may still be seen in -what is now left in the two low wings, the architrave and frieze being -thrown together into one blank surface. - - -TUSCAN ORDER. - -[Illustration] - -This, as already stated, is not entitled to rank as a distinct Order, -being, in fact, nothing more than a simplified, if not a spurious -and debased variety of the Doric. No authentic examples of it exist: -it is known only from what Vitruvius says of it, following whose -imperfect account, modern writers and architects have endeavoured to -make out something answering to it. Yet what has been so produced is -to all intents and purposes Doric,—though not Grecian Doric,—excepting -that the shafts are unfluted and the frieze quite plain; which last -circumstance, and much more, as has just above been intimated, is -a mere trifling discrepancy, since not the triglyphs merely, but -the frieze may, it seems, be omitted without thereby forfeiting the -character of Doric for the Order. Though the Tuscan is spoken of, it -is not practised. Almost the only example of what is called by that -name in this country is Inigo Jones’s portico of St. Paul’s, Covent -Garden, which, though not devoid of character and effect, is remarkable -chiefly for the great width of the intercolumns, and the great -projection of its very shallow, and therefore too shelf-like cornice, -which, if no other part, must be admitted to differ widely from the -comparatively slightly projecting and massive Doric cornice. The Tuscan -has, however, been treated differently by different Architects, and -some of them have given it what is merely a modification of the Doric -cornice without its mutules. Their Tuscan becomes, in fact, very little -more than a plainer sort of their own Doric, distinguished from it -chiefly, and that only negatively, by the omission of triglyphs on the -frieze. One thing which the Moderns have done, both in their Doric -and their Tuscan, is to assimilate pilasters to columns, giving to -the former precisely the same bases and capitals as the others have, -and also generally diminishing their shafts in the same manner. Still -all the differences here pointed out, together with many minor ones -besides, do not constitute different Orders, unless they are to be -multiplied by being subdivided into almost as many distinct Orders as -there are varieties of one and the same class. All the Dorics and the -Tuscan agree in having the _echino-abacus capital_. Therefore, if we -want a quite different and distinct Order, we must turn, as we now do, -to the _voluted-capital_ class of columns, or that which bears the name -of the - - -IONIC ORDER. - -[Illustration] - -How this Order originated,—what first led to the adoption of volutes -as a suitable decoration for the capital,—whether they were mere -decoration, or were at first intended to express some meaning,—whether -they were intentionally devised for the latter purpose, or grew out of -some accidental hint,—must now be entirely matter of conjecture. Of one -thing we may be quite certain, that the Order as we now find it in the -best and best known examples, was not struck out all at once, but must -have passed through several stages till it was ultimately matured into -perfection. - -Although the capital is the _indicial_ mark of the Order,—that by which -the eye immediately recognizes and distinguishes it,—the entire column -is of quite a different character from the Doric. Besides having the -addition of a base, the shaft is of more slender or taller proportions, -and consequently made much less visibly tapering; for if it diminished -in the same degree as the Doric shaft does,—the Ionic being about two -diameters longer,—the upper one would, in consequence of such tapering, -become much too small; and a further consequence would be that the -foot and base of the column would appear much too large,—perhaps -clumsily so. Not knowing expressly to the contrary, we are at liberty -to suppose that it was the altered form and character of the capital -itself which first led to the formation of a base or series of -mouldings at the bottom of the shaft, in order to produce such degree -of finish below as would correspond with and balance the richness and -flow of outline given to the capital. And it must be allowed that the -swelling contours of the base are admirably in keeping, and harmonize -with the play of curves in the volutes; whereas, were the shaft to -stand immediately upon the floor or pavement without any base, as in -the Doric Order, although such treatment is in perfect correspondence -with the character of that echino-abacus Order, it would be just the -reverse in the _voluted_ one. There would be a harshness and abruptness -below, in grating discord with the graceful flow of lines in the -capital above. This feeling dictated the necessity for a corresponding -base, which, although generally spoken of as an addition _to_ the -shaft, may with far greater propriety be said to have been _taken -out_ of it. Any actual addition to the foot of the shaft would have -been the same as an enlargement of it, producing disproportion, and -therefore deformity. The most rational explanation therefore is, that -the original diameter for the foot of the shaft was retained, but the -foot itself shaped into mouldings, and the portion immediately above -it pared away or reduced, so that the column became more diameters in -height than before. That being done, and a distinct base so obtained, -it was found necessary to make a further change, for the sharp arrises -of the Doric mode of fluting occasioned a degree of harshness quite -at variance with the greater delicacy aimed at in other respects. -Those arrises were accordingly converted into _fillets_, which are not -actual members, but merely spaces left between the channels or flutes -themselves, which last are consequently narrower than in the Doric -column; and their comparative narrowness is further increased by their -being augmented in number, from that of twenty to twenty-four. Thus -the change from the Doric to the Ionic column may be accounted for, -rationally at least, and æsthetically, if not historically. We do not, -indeed, profess to know and determine the actual origin of the volutes -of the capital, and therefore leave those who put faith in Vitruvius to -believe, if they can, that they were derived from the imitation of the -curls in a lady’s head-dress; or, as others will have it, that the idea -was borrowed either from rams’ horns, or the slender and flexile twigs -of trees placed upon the capital for ornament! We also leave those who -are not satisfied with our way of accounting for the base given to the -Ionic column to fancy that this member was intended to imitate the -ancient _chaussure_ or sandals. - -The Ionic capital is far more complex than that of the Doric, and -not only more complex, but more irregular also: instead of showing, -like the other, four equal sides, it exhibits two faces or fronts -parallel to the architrave above it, and two narrower _baluster_ -sides, as they are termed, beneath the architrave. Some consider this -irregularity a defect, which, if such it be, is to be got over only -by either turning the volutes diagonally, as in some Roman and modern -examples, or by curving concavely the faces of the capital, instead -of making them planes, so as to obtain four equal faces or sides, as -is done in the capitals of the inner Order of the Temple of Apollo at -Bassæ. At least that method, and the other one of turning the volutes -diagonally, are the only methods that have been practised for giving -perfect regularity to the Ionic capital by means of four equal faces; -for, though difficult, it is possible to accomplish the same purpose -differently, by making the abacus quite square, as in the Doric Order, -and letting the volutes grow out of it on each side or face, their -curvature commencing not on the upper horizontal edge, but descending -from the vertical edges of the abacus. In fact, the volutes might be -fancied to have originated in a prolonged abacus, first falling down -on each side beneath the architrave, and then coiled up on the back -and front of the column for the two faces, which thus became greater -in width; after which a smaller ornamental abacus was introduced as -a crowning member, immediately beneath the architrave. As it is now -treated, the great extent of the two flat voluted faces prevents the -capital from being square. Let us endeavour to explain this: as average -measurement, we may put down 50 minutes, or 10 less than the lower -diameter, for that of the upper diameter of the shaft; 65 for the sides -of the abacus; from 56 to 60 for the soffit of the architrave, which -last accordingly overhangs the upper part of the shaft; and 90 minutes, -that is, three modules, or a diameter and a half, for the faces of the -capital, measured across the volutes. Now, were the capital square—as -deep from back to front as it is wide in front—its bulk would be -excessive, and out of proportion with the column and other parts of the -Order, and inconsistent with the delicacy aimed at in all respects. The -mere _lateral_ expansion of the capital, on the contrary, as viewed -in front, does not occasion any appearance of heaviness,—rather that -of richness; more especially as the bulk is greatly diminished by the -following ingenious expedient. Instead of the _baluster side_ being -made cylindrical by being kept of the same diameter throughout, and -equal to the face of the volute, it is gradually diminished from each -face; so that the side of the capital thus becomes in a manner hollowed -out; and not only that, but great play of form is imparted to it, and -its curvature both contrasts and harmonizes with the curves of the -volutes themselves. - -If there be not the same completeness with respect to uniformity in all -the four sides as is obtained in the Doric and Corinthian capitals, -at any rate the most admirable artistic contrivance and propriety are -exhibited. The only thing to be objected against the Ionic capital is, -that in the end columns of a portico the form of capital just described -occasioned obvious if not offensive irregularity, because on the -return or side of the building the baluster side showed itself beneath -the face of the architrave: yet even this was of little consequence -if there was merely a single row of columns in front; but where the -colonnade was continued along the flanks of the building also, a very -unsightly sort of irregularity was produced; for while all the other -columns on those flanks showed the faces of their capitals, the end -one would show its baluster side. Here then a difficulty presented -itself that demanded some ingenuity to overcome it; and hardly can we -sufficiently admire the happy expedient by which it was surmounted. It -was necessary to give the capital at the angle two adjoining voluted -faces, so that it should agree with those of the other columns both in -front and on the flank of the building. This was accordingly effected -by placing the volute at the angle, diagonally, so as to obtain there -two voluted surfaces placed immediately back to back,—a most happy and -simple contrivance, which, now that it has been applied, every one is -at liberty to fancy he could have found out for himself. Nevertheless -it is not every one that approves of it, for there are some who affect -to regard that disposition of the volute at the angle as a defect. -If it be strictly considered merely in itself, it may, perhaps, be -objected to such capital that in itself it is irregular, one of the -volutes in each of its faces being turned obliquely and foreshortened, -while the other volute in the same face is seen directly in front, -as in all the other capitals. Yet surely such partial and trifling -irregularity may very well be excused, instead of being imputed as a -defect, since it obviates far greater irregularities, and contributes -so effectively to general harmony and symmetry. At all events, it is -incumbent upon those who make the objection to show how much better -they could have managed matters. So far are we from objecting to it, -that we do not see why the same diagonal disposition of the volutes -should not, _occasionally_ at least, be employed for all the capitals -alike, thereby giving them, although in all other respects perfectly -Greek as to style, four uniform faces, as in some of the Roman and -Italian examples of the Order. - -How little modern Architects are capable of modifying the Ionic -capital, and adapting it to particular circumstances, may be seen in -the colonnades of the façade of the British Museum, where, at the -re-entering or internal angle formed by colonnades at right angles to -each other, the column at the angle has two adjoining voluted faces -given to it; but as a re-entering or inner angle is circumstanced -quite differently from an external one, the consequence is that each -of those faces falls opposite the baluster side of the columns ranging -with it either way. We explain this briefly in two simple diagrams, in -which _f_ indicates the face or voluted side of the capital, and _b_ -the baluster side. In an external angle, or the return of a portico, -the faces and sides are arranged thus, so that _b b b b_ come opposite -each other; but in an internal or re-entering angle, the reverse takes -place; for we have then this disposition of the faces and sides of the -capitals, in which a voluted face comes opposite to the baluster side -of the next capital,—a most unsightly irregularity, and one all the -more unpardonable because it could have been got over, if in no other -way, by converting that column (_a_) into a square pillar, which would -besides give strength, or the expression of it, where such expression -is very desirable. - -[Illustration] - -[Illustration] - -If these observations on the Ionic capital seem to detain us too -long, we cannot help it: they are nothing less than indispensable -for a proper understanding of its nature, and the peculiarity of -circumstances attending it. What remains to be observed is, that -owing to its complexity, that capital admits of very great diversity -of character and decoration. It is sometimes without, and sometimes -has a necking to it, which may either be plain or decorated, as may -best accord with the particular expression, either as to richness -or quiet simplicity, which is aimed at as the characteristic of the -entire design. The capital may be modified almost infinitely in its -proportions; first, as regards its general proportion to the column; -secondly, as regards the size of the volutes compared with the width of -the face. In the best Greek examples the volutes are much bolder and -larger than in those of the Roman and Italian, in some of which they -are so greatly reduced in size, and become consequently so far apart -from each other, as to be insignificant in themselves, and give the -whole capital an expression of meagreness and meanness. The _spirals_ -forming the volute supply another source of variety, since they may -be either single or manifold. In what is called the Ilissus Ionic -capital there is only a single spiral, or _hem_, whose revolutions form -the volute, which mode, indeed, prevails in all the Roman and modern -Ionics; but in the capitals of the Temple of Erechtheus at Athens, -there are, besides that principal spiral, other intermediate ones which -follow the course of its revolutions. Again, the _cathetus_, or eye of -the volute, where the spiral or spirals terminate, admits of being made -smaller or larger. It is, besides, sometimes flat, sometimes convex, -and occasionally carved as a _rosette_. All these variations are -independent of the general composition of the capital, and though not -all equally good, they both suggest and authorize other modifications -of the Ionic type, and fresh combinations. - -[Illustration] - -One exceedingly interesting example, highly valuable as suggestive -study,—one quite _sui generis_, and perhaps on that account viewed with -more of prejudice than relish, is the internal Order of the Temple of -Apollo at Bassæ, delineated and described by Mr. T. L. Donaldson, in -the supplementary volume to Stuart’s ‘Athens.’ This example, which -seems to have found favour only in the eyes of Mr. C. R. Cockerell, who -has employed it on more than one occasion, has, as already intimated, -four similar faces; yet if it so far agrees with many Roman and modern -Ionic capitals, it differs from them totally in every other respect. -While the faces of the latter are formed rather by merely _sticking on_ -the volutes diagonally, instead of _turning_ them, so in the example -now under notice, each face may be said to be arched, since it curves -downwards on each side from the middle of its upper edge, instead -of being there straight or horizontal beneath the architrave. Owing -to this circumstance the faces of the capital have the look of being -rather affixed to than properly connected with the abacus, and there -is a certain degree of incongruousness and want of finish. So far, -then, there is room for improvement, and perhaps in some other respects -also; yet upon the whole there is much to approve of and admire in this -capital, among whose peculiarities it deserves to be noted that the -space between the volutes is not above half the width of the volutes -themselves. Nor is it for its capital alone this that example of the -Order is remarkable, its base being equally peculiar, on account of -its simplicity of form, and still more so, perhaps, on account of its -very great expansion, spreading out below to considerably more than -two upper diameters of the shaft; which perhaps causes the capital to -appear rather too small in comparison with it. This base is all the -more remarkable because it differs entirely from what is called the -_Ionic base_, although not employed by the European Greeks for that -Order, who made use of what is styled the _Attic base_, consisting -of two _tori_ and a _scotia_, or deep curved hollow, between them. -The proper Ionic base, or what is so called, differs from every other -form of that member, being greatly contracted in its lower mouldings, -which, if not a deformity, is not a particular beauty, as it gives the -base too much the appearance of being reversed or turned upside down; -and hence it is difficult to assign any probable or sufficient motive -for such conformation of mouldings in the foot of a column. Perhaps -the only modern instance of the application of that base occurs in -the _tetrastyle_ (_four_-columned) portico of Hanover Chapel, Regent -Street, whose Order is copied from the Temple of Minerva Polias at -Priene, in Asia Minor; to which example we shall presently have -occasion to refer again when we come to speak of the Ionic entablature. -Before so doing we have to call attention to another peculiarity in -the columns within the Temple at Bassæ, whose base is above shown: -we allude to the mode in which the shafts are fluted, which seems to -indicate a transition from the Doric to the Ionic style, the fillets -being exceedingly narrow, and the channels shallow and very slightly -curved, which gives the shaft altogether a different character from -that attending the usual mode of fluting practised for this Order. - -Although it is a modern composition, derived from the study of Greek -fragments, yet certainly not on that account the less meritorious -than if it were an express copy from some one particular example, we -may be allowed to speak of the Order, or rather the columns of the -_hexastyle_ (_six_-columned) portico of the Church in Regent Square, -Gray’s Inn Road, erected between twenty and thirty years ago by Mr. -Inwood, soon after the completion of St. Pancras’ Church, whose portico -so admirably exemplifies the florid and elaborately wrought Ionic of -the Temple of Erechtheus at Athens. The columns of the Regent Square -Church,—and it is on account of the columns alone that we allude to -it,—differ from all other known examples; not only in their bases and -capitals, but also in the very peculiar mode of fluting, or rather -_striating_, employed for their shafts. Not having detailed drawings, -or any drawings at all to assist us, we cannot pretend to enter into -description, but can only say that base, shaft, and capital are unlike -all received examples, and at the same time so well adapted to each -other as to produce artistic unity and consistency of character; and -that character is stamped by _breadth_ and simplicity. With respect to -the fluting, it partakes of what may be called _striating_, the fillets -showing themselves rather as narrow surfaces raised upon the shaft, -than the channels as positive hollows between them. The capital is at -once graceful and simple, and derives much of its peculiar character -from the enlarged eye of the volute, which is occupied by a rosette -ornament. - -Interesting as it would be to particularize other examples, we cannot -do so here, which is the less to be regretted because mere verbal -remarks, unaccompanied by drawings on such a scale as to fully show -all their minutiæ, would not be very satisfactory. Perhaps we shall be -thought to have already dwelt rather too long on the mere column, for -we have not yet quite done with that part of the Order. It remains to -be observed, that notwithstanding its situation is such as to render -detail there hardly noticeable, the baluster side of the capital was -always enriched. In Greek examples it had a series of wide channels -with broad fillets between them, and where great richness was affected, -as in the Ionic of the Temple of Erechtheus, the fillets had an -additional moulding upon them, carved into beads. In the Asiatic -examples, on the contrary, and Roman ones also, the baluster side is -usually cut into the form of leaves, bound together, as it were, in -the centre by a broad moulded ring, which produces an exceedingly -good effect; and indeed, in several instances, much better taste is -manifested in that obscure part of the capital than in the face itself. - -Although it is repetition to say that the base usually given to this -Order by the Greeks was the _Attic_ one, consisting of two _tori_, -divided by a _scotia_, we here refer to that part of the column again -for the purpose of noting a species of enrichment applied to it, the -upper torus being sometimes fluted horizontally, at others cut to -resemble an interlaced chain-like ornament, now called a _guilloche_. -Modern Architects, however, invariably leave the upper torus of the -base quite plain, even when they scrupulously copy every other part -of the column. The only instance of channeling upon the upper torus, -to which we can point, is that of the portico of St. Pancras’ Church, -which building well deserves to be carefully examined and studied by -those who would acquire a correct idea of the exquisite finish and -richness of Grecian Ionic details, and their effect in execution. - -For Ionic Antæ a few words will suffice. Without exactly agreeing with -that of the column, the base does not differ very materially from it, -except, indeed, in the Ilissus example, where it is lower than the -other, and consists only of a shallow scotia with a channeled torus -above it. In the Erechtheum example it is distinguished from the -column base chiefly by both lower and upper torus being channeled. -The capital, or, as it is more commonly termed, _anta-cap_, on the -contrary, is differently shaped from that of the column, in consequence -of having no volutes; wherefore it is not by any means so wide, neither -is it so deep. The mouldings, too, though of the same character, are -differently disposed. Still the anta-cap corresponds with the capital -as to plainness or enrichment,—being either carved or not, as those -of the latter happen to be; and if the capital has an ornamented -necking, so also has the anta. One singularity in the treatment of -Ionic antæ, is that of the face of the anta, a slight break being -made down the middle of it, which causes it to appear composed of two -very narrow faces put together side by side, but not exactly _flush_ -with each other. This kind of antæ, in imitation of those of the -Erechtheum—perhaps the only precedent for it—has been adopted for St. -Pancras’ Church. What could have led to it is rather difficult to -conjecture, since there does not appear to be any adequate motive for -it, or any purpose gained by it. - -IONIC ENTABLATURE.—As expressed in the terms of the diameter of the -column, that is, measured by it, the entablature exceeds that of the -Doric Order. In the Parthenon the entire height of the entablature is -not more than 2 diameters; while in both the Ionic and Erechtheum it is -2 diameters and 17 parts, or the third of a diameter more; whereas it -would seem that the Ionic column being much slenderer, the entablature -ought to be less than 2 diameters in height, instead of being more. And -so it is, and less in a considerable degree: it is the height, not the -diameter, of the column which regulates the height of the entablature; -in other words, the height of the latter must be in proportion to that -of the former.[2] Now 2⅓ diameters for the entablature is much less in -proportion to a column 8 or 9 diameters high, than 2 diameters for the -entablature is to one that is only 6 diameters high. In the latter case -the entablature is equal to one-third of the column, and one-fourth -of the whole Order; but in the other, 2⅓ diameters amount to only a -fourth, or thereabouts, of the height of the column, and consequently -to only about a fifth of the entire Order. - -[2] The necessity for agreement in this respect between the column and -its entablature will be rendered apparent by the preposterous effect -produced in two instances where the columns have been prolonged to -an absurd height without the entablature being deepened in the same -degree; namely, the portico of the Admiralty, and that within the court -of Furnival’s Inn; the first of which is bad enough, the other far -worse in every respect. - -The Ionic _architrave_ does not differ materially from that of the -Doric. Its average or standard height is the upper diameter of the -column. In the plainer examples of Ionic, such as the Ilissus one, the -face of the architrave is quite plain, as in the preceding Order, and -distinguished from it only by the Doric tenia being converted into a -moulding of a plain bead and small echinus, surmounted by a narrow -tenia or broad fillet. In more decorated examples, as that of the -Erechtheum, the face of the architrave is divided into three surfaces -or courses, called _faciæ_, which very slightly project before or -overhang each other, and the moulding between the architrave and frieze -is increased in depth; there is a greater number of mouldings, and some -of them are enriched by being carved, or, as it is termed, _cut_. - -As to the Ionic frieze, triglyphs being discarded for it, and no other -characteristic members substituted for them, it becomes no more than a -plain surface interposed between the architrave and cornice, unless,—as -is now never done, although it was, in all probability, generally done -by the Ancients,—it is enriched with figures in bas-relief or other -sculpture. Yet as _mere_ sculpture of that kind, however essential to -effect, is not taken into account, or considered to belong even to the -character of an Order, but to be something quite extraneous that may -either be introduced or omitted at pleasure, it is omitted accordingly; -whereby the frieze is reduced to a mere blank surface, which leaves -nothing more to be said concerning it. - -The Ionic cornice affords but little scope for further observation, -more particularly in the Athenian examples, in which it consists of -little more than the _corona_ and cymatium above it, and some narrow -_bed-mouldings_ beneath the former member, partly got out of its -hollowed soffit or under surface. Consequently the whole cornice looks -rather meagre and poor, especially if the richer form of capital with -a necking to it be employed for the columns. In such case there is no -corresponding degree of richness and increased importance in what is, -nevertheless, the completing member or division of the entire Order, -and ought accordingly to be treated as such. On this account we hold -the cornice of the Erechtheum example to be very unsatisfactory, and to -derogate from what is the character of the Order in all other respects: -while the capital is particularly ornate, luxuriant, and complicated -in design, the cornice, which, as has been before remarked, is to be -considered as the capital of the entire Order, is particularly simple -and severe; and owing to the want of a sufficiency of bed-mouldings -beneath it, the corona appears to jut out too abruptly immediately -over the frieze, without due preparation for it. Were the frieze -sculptured, such enrichment would, perhaps, without any thing further, -confer an adequate degree of ornateness upon the whole entablature, -and bring it into keeping with the highly finished columns. If, on -the contrary, the frieze is to be left plain, the best way would be -to reduce its height a little, and perhaps that of the architrave -also, and enlarge the cornice by introducing _dentels_ into it. These -last-mentioned members,—which, although considered by modern writers -to be characteristic of the Ionic Order, and to be to its cornice what -_mutules_ are to the Doric, and _modillions_ to the Corinthian, do -not appear to have been so regarded by the Greeks themselves,—consist -of a series of narrow upright blocks (supposed to represent the ends -of joists), placed closely together, so that the spaces between them, -which are only about half as wide as the blocks themselves, appear to -_indent_ that portion of the cornice, which, when introduced without -being so ornamented, is called an uncut _dentel band_. - -The Priene example, to which we referred when speaking of Ionic bases, -offers what, in our opinion at least, is a far better model for an -Ionic cornice than that of the Erechtheum, and which, with perhaps -some modification of it, might very well be applied to the more florid -Athenian Order; and though to do so would be contrary to _precedent_, -that would matter little, so that the change itself were in conformity -with artistic effect and æsthetic principles. - -The Temple of Jupiter at Aizani in Asia Minor exhibits a remarkable -example of the Ionic Order, the details of which were recently -published, for the first time, by M. Texier. In its general -conformation the base resembles the Priene example; but the entablature -is quite different. The architrave is divided into three faciæ, -separated by a cut moulding; and the upper faciæ is surmounted by an -exceedingly deep and highly enriched course of mouldings. The frieze, -too, is ornamented in a very unusual fashion, acanthus leaves being -placed upon it at intervals, somewhat after the manner of triglyphs, -and connected together with scrolls. The cornice has both dentels and -modillions and a narrow corona, but a deep cymatium or epitithedas, -enriched with carving. - -We will not pursue our notice of the Greek or Ancient Ionic any -farther, but here conclude it with observing, that notwithstanding its -decided superiority to the Roman, &c., especially in its capital, the -former has not been adopted by the Italian and French Architects of the -present day. In this country, on the contrary, the Greek Ionic has been -employed almost to the entire exclusion of the other, from the time -of its being first made known to us by means of Stuart and Revett’s -‘Antiquities of Athens,’ and the ‘Ionian Antiquities;’ to which -publications may be added the ‘Unedited Antiquities of Attica,’ which -contains other specimens of the Order, found at Eleusis, remarkable for -their refined simplicity and also their gracefulness. Not the least -important lesson to be derived from these and similar publications is, -we permit ourselves to say, the learning from them that the Greeks -treated their Orders with artistic spirit and freedom, conforming to a -certain type or general standard for each, but varying their details -and modifying their proportions. - -For examples of Grecian Doric and Ionic which may be seen in London, -and which the student would therefore do well to look at and carefully -examine for himself, since he will from these learn more than he -possibly can do from books alone, we refer to the following buildings: -for Doric, the _tetrastyle_ portico of Covent Garden Theatre, and the -_hexastyle_ one of the Colosseum in the Regent’s Park; which latter -shows the Order to much greater advantage than the other, owing to -its being free from such disturbing and very un-antique additions -as several doors and windows within it, which inevitably destroy -all breadth and repose;—it has also the advantage of a west aspect, -by which the full effect of light and shade is produced. For Ionic -examples, we refer to St. Pancras’ Church, New Road, whose order is -a faithful transcript from that of the Erechtheum; the same building -also affords an instance of the application of a caryatid order of -female figures in the porch, or rather the porch-like structure, on its -north and south sides,—the idea of which is taken from a similar small -structure attached to the Athenian Temple;—the University Club House, -Pall Mall East, where the same Order is applied upon a much smaller -scale, and raised upon a basement floor;—the Chapel in South Audley -Street;—the portico of the Post Office, and the façade of the British -Museum;—the portico of the College of Surgeons, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, -whose columns, proportioned according to the Ilissus example, were -originally plain, but were fluted, and the mouldings of the entablature -cut, when the building was altered and greatly improved some years ago, -by Mr. Barry;—the portico of Hanover Chapel, Regent Street, which, as -the reader is already aware, shows the Priene Ionic;—and lastly, for -we will not further extend this list, the portico of the India House, -Leadenhall Street, which is remarkable for its frieze being sculptured, -and its pediment also filled in with figures in relief. Of similar -decoration for the Doric Order we cannot point out any instance here, -both the metopes of the frieze, and the pediment, being left plain in -all our English specimens of that Order. - - -ROMAN AND MODERN IONIC. - -To elucidate this part of our subject at all satisfactorily would -require a great number of drawings; accordingly we must make shift -as well as we can without them, leaving the student to turn to other -works for examples,—should he, as we trust he will, have imbibed -from our remarks any relish for the study of the Orders by accurate -comparison of various examples of one and the same Order. Neither -the Romans nor their modern successors appear to have comprehended -the genius of the Ionic Order any more than of the Doric. Their best -imitations, both of the one and the other, were of but a bungling -kind. They certainly had no great affection for either, for we find -comparatively very few instances of them in Roman remains. As treated -by them, the Ionic capital was not only greatly impoverished, but -deformed also,—impoverished by the volutes being greatly reduced in -size, and consequently in importance also, as characteristic marks of -the Order,—and deformed, owing to the tasteless treatment of it in -other respects. Instead of the gracefully flowing _festoon_ hem, or -mouldings over the echinus, which seems to connect the two volutes or -sides of the face of the capital together, there is a straight line -without any moulding to it, and the echinus, projecting before it, -produces an appearance of clumsiness—of the several members not being -properly adjusted to each other. As in all the Greek examples, the -echinus of the capital, which passes behind the volutes, is invariably -carved with that sort of pattern which workmen call ‘eggs and darts,’ -_ova_ or egg-shaped ornaments, almost naturally resulting from the -contour of the moulding before it is cut; and the echinus of the -Ionic, being always so carved, is on that account distinguished by the -name of _ovolo_,—not because its section or profile is any portion -of an oval or elliptic curve; for among other things the Roman style -differs from the Greek in having all its moulding, both convex and -concave, formed of portions of circles, by which its details become -less elegant in contour. But we cannot enter into such niceties in a -mere rudimentary work. Even in the best Roman and modern examples, the -volutes are decidedly inferior to Greek, being comparatively tame and -meagre, yet coarse also. Italian Architects have sometimes made them -so small and insignificant that they give scarcely any character to -the capital, or render it distinguishable, at a little distance, from -the Doric, its general mass being no greater. The spiral makes fewer -revolutions, and the _hem_ or moulding which forms it is flat, as is -also the inter-spiral or general surface of the volute, which has never -any secondary spirals upon it, though that and the _intervolute_ are -sometimes enriched with foliage. - -Of the Roman Ionic Order, as a whole, we know very little, there being -only three accredited examples of it, viz. the Theatre of Marcellus, -the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, and the Temple of Concord. Of the first -of these, the capital is the simplest and plainest, and also the -smallest in its proportions; that of the second is by very far the -best, its volutes retaining most of the Greek character; and that of -the third is remarkable, if not for its ugliness in other respects, -for its volutes being turned outwards diagonally, so as to present -four equal faces,—a mode afterwards _re-invented_ and brought up as a -novelty by Scamozzi, in honour of whom it has since been distinguished -by the name of the Scamozzi capital. But if there are few ancient -buildings remaining of the Roman Ionic Order, there are numerous -detached specimens of it in antique columns that have been preserved by -having been made use of in other buildings, or deposited in collections -of sculpture. Many of these have been delineated and published by -Piranesi and others; and they are so numerous and so varied that we -cannot pretend either to classify them, or to particularize even the -principal ones. All that we can here say is, that although they fall -far short of the refined taste exhibited in Greek examples, some of -them possess considerable merit, and supply ideas for other and better -varieties. They also serve to convince us that, like the Greeks, the -Romans did not abide by a single stereotype pattern for each Order: -the attempt to establish such uniformity and conformity to rule was -reserved for the Palladios and Vignolas of the 16th century. - -There is a fine antique example of the kind in the British Museum, in -which the volutes are placed diagonally, and beneath each face of the -capital there is not a mere flat mask, but a head, cut out in bold -relief, all of them different from each other. The whole is excellently -well composed, and highly interesting as a study. One of the varieties -of Ionic capitals shown by Piranesi is that from a column in the Church -of Santa Maria Transtevere at Rome, which is ornamented on its face -with a small head or bust upon the face of the intervolute and abacus, -and the eye of the volutes themselves is unusually large, and contains -a small half-length female figure carved upon it,—which, though it -can be distinctly seen in a drawing, can be hardly perceptible in the -column itself. The only other variety of or _invention_ for the Ionic -capital that we can notice is one that has frequently been practised by -Italian Architects, and which may be distinguished as the _festoon_ or -festooned capital, the volutes being turned diagonally, and a festoon -being suspended from the eye one volute to that of the other beneath -each face. This not only gives variety and richness to the capital, but -by increasing its volume or bulk, increases its importance also, and -produces great play of light and shade: there is harmony together with -diversity in the combination of forms, the curve of the festoon being, -though dissimilar, in agreement with the outline of the volutes. The -columns of the circular portico to the Church in Langham Place have -capitals of this description, in which cherub heads are introduced into -the festoons; and so far as the mere capitals go, that specimen of -Ionic is entitled to much praise: the misfortune is, that the Order is -not satisfactory as a whole; for the increased richness of the capitals -requires that there should be a corresponding degree of richness given -to the entablature. At present there is no proportion—that is, with -regard to decoration—observed; for the same entablature, or cornice at -least, which is in keeping with a smaller and plainer capital, cannot -be equally adapted to a larger and more ornate one, but partakes of -either excess, or the ‘too much’ in the one case, or of deficiency, or -the ‘too little’ in the other,—not perhaps as to size, but in regard -to the _quantum_ of embellishment. To obviate the meagreness and -insignificance of the usual Italian Ionic capital, Sansovino and some -others have frequently given it a necking, either plain or enriched, -which, even when plain, greatly improves the general appearance of the -column by increasing the depth of the capital and reducing the height -of the shaft. To make this the clearer, let us, without pretending -at all to exactness, call the column nine diameters high, and the -capital either half a diameter, or a whole one, accordingly as it is -without or with a necking: now in the first case the capital will be -to the shaft (base included) only as one to _seventeen_, whereas in -the other it becomes as one to _eight_; which is not at all too much, -while the other way the shaft is much too lanky, and the capital too -low,—as is probably felt by those who cannot explain the cause of such -disagreement and disproportion. - -ENTABLATURE.—There is not much to say, at least there is no occasion -for saying much, relative to this part of the Roman and Modern Ionic -Order. The ancient examples of it are by far too few to admit of any -general laws for it being derived from them; nor are the examples -themselves very satisfactory. That of the Ionic of the Theatre of -Marcellus is, perhaps, the best upon the whole, and seems to have -been that which has guided the Moderns in the composition of their -entablature, although they have very greatly diminished the proportions -of the cornice, which is there nearly equal to both architrave and -frieze together. In the Athenian Ionic we may set down the architrave, -frieze, and cornice as about 50, 50, and 35 minutes respectively, -making altogether two diameters and 15 minutes (or a quarter of a -diameter); therefore the cornice is to each of the other two divisions -of the entablature only as 35 to 50. In the Roman Ionic, on the -contrary, the cornice is by much the largest division: in the Fortuna -Virilis example the measures are,—architrave 38', frieze 19', cornice -70'; in that of the Theatre of Marcellus, 43'—36'—66', making the -entire entablature 127', or 2 diameters 7'. Although modern Architects -vary from these proportions, and some of them make the frieze equal -to or more than the architrave, they all agree—in doctrine at least, -if not in practice—in making the cornice the largest division of the -entablature; and as the projection is usually equal to its height, -or thereabouts, the cornice thus gains in importance both ways, and, -as far as its mere proportions are concerned, becomes an adequate -finishing to the entire Order. This latter mode certainly appears -more in accordance with artistic principle: shall we then presume -to say that the Greeks were wrong in their treatment of the Ionic -cornice?—Well, let us say then, that they were not quite so right as -they might have been. To us, the Asiatic Ionic cornice (for instance -that of the Priene Order) is far more satisfactory than either the -Hellenic or Athenian; and in our opinion it would require a cornice -richer still, to correspond with the highly elaborated Erechtheum -capital, and maintain due artistic keeping in the whole of that Order. -These remarks partake, perhaps, too much of digression: we will -therefore dismiss them, and the cornice also, merely adding that either -dentels, or larger plain blocks, placed rather wide apart from each -other, are considered the proper characteristic marks of the Ionic -cornice. - -There is nothing in either the architrave or the frieze that calls -for observation, except that the Moderns have frequently given to -this Order, by way of distinction, a convex frieze, technically -termed a _pulvinated_ one from its fancied resemblance to a cushion -(_pulvinar_), whose sides swell out by compression when sat upon. A -frieze of the kind occurs in what is otherwise a very corrupt specimen -of the Order, in the Baths of Diocletian. It would be absurd to -suppose that such form of frieze originated in an imitation of the -thing after which it is now named; and there are two motives, either -of which, or both combined, may have led to it. The first of them is, -that such curvature in the face of the frieze may have been thought -very suitable for the Ionic Order, as agreeing with the curved forms -predominating in the character of the capital, namely, the volutes. -The second is, that a convex surface produces greater diversity of -light and shade than a plain one; and coming between the architrave -and cornice, is sufficiently distinguished by contour alone. Still it -must be admitted that such form is somewhat too arbitrary and fanciful -to be in accordance with strict architectural principles. It is well -enough suited for interiors, or for entablatures upon a small scale, -such as those of doors and windows, but not for a large external -Order. The pulvinated frieze occurs frequently in the Cinque-cento and -Renaissance styles, and in our own English Renaissance, or Elizabethan. -An instance of it may be seen in that well-known and celebrated piece -of architecture by Jones, the front of Whitehall Chapel, whose Ionic -Order generally will convey an idea of the Italian mode of treating -it. And it so happens that the tasteful little screen front of Dover -House (added by Holland to the original mansion), on the opposite -side of the street, offers an example of the Ilissus Ionic, whereby -immediate comparison between the two styles may easily be made. Another -specimen of Italian Ionic, and of Italian Doric, is the new portion -lately added to the Carlton Club House, Pall Mall, which is all but a -literal copy from Sansovino’s Library of St. Mark at Venice. Sansovino -seems there to have aimed at the greatest possible richness for both -Orders; and in his building the Doric metopes are sculptured, but are -left plain in the Club House, although such decoration for them would -have been novelty here, and would have brought that lower Order more -into keeping with the upper one. The shafts of the columns are not -fluted as in the Italian building, but for very sufficient reason: -being of dark polished granite, they would have acquired no great -richness in consequence of their being so cut; on the contrary, the -effect of the material itself would have been impaired. The Ionic -capitals have an ornamented necking, which is here not only a beauty -but a great propriety, because without it the capitals would have -looked diminutive, more especially beneath such a greatly exaggerated -entablature. Tested by ordinary rules, this last must be pronounced -monstrous, licentious in the extreme, perhaps downright barbarous; and, -no doubt, would be so, were it not protected by the name of Sansovino. -His English copyist has therefore sufficient authority for it,—not so, -Sansovino himself: whence, then, did he get his _precedent_? Well, he -dispensed with precedent, and using the privilege of a Master in his -Art, ventured beyond its written rules and conventionalities,—ventured -where he might have failed, and exposed himself to derision,—but -succeeded, and has been crowned by applause. In Art, as in other -things, success sanctifies enterprize: if you fail, the world calls -you a madman or fool; if you succeed, it bows down to you as a genius. -It must be confessed that such an entablature as Sansovino has there -given his Ionic Order would be nothing less than monstrous, did the -Order itself constitute the edifice, as in the antique temple; instead -of which, the two Orders there introduced are no more than ornamental -accessories, and the greatly enlarged entablature of the upper one is -to be regarded as proportioned with reference not so much to its own -columns as to the general mass of the entire façade. It may be as well -to remark here, that both the Carlton Club House and Whitehall Chapel -are instances of _super-columniation_, or two Orders placed one over -the other—in the former building, an Ionic over a Doric—in the latter, -a Corinthian over an Ionic Order. And in both cases the columns are -_attached_ or _engaged_, as is said of columns which are united to the -face of a wall so as not to project from it as much as their diameter, -but only about half or three-quarters of it, and are therefore termed -respectively _half_ or _three-quarter_ columns. - - -CORINTHIAN ORDER. - -[Illustration] - -We now arrive at the third and last of the Orders, or that which is -distinguished from the other two, more by its deep and foliaged capital -than by its proportions,—at least it is chiefly so distinguished -from the Ionic, with which it has in other respects many points in -common; for the columns of both have bases differing but little from -each other, and their shafts are fluted in the same manner. How this -Order came to obtain the name of Corinthian is not very clear; nor -is it, architecturally, of any moment whether such name be right or -wrong. All that is certain is, that examples of this Order have not -been found at Corinth itself, where, judging from its name, it would -seem to have been the prevalent style of building, and there brought -to perfection. There is a pretty legend relative to the origin of the -Corinthian capital, which, if not true, has at least probability in -its favour, and is many degrees less nonsensical than the supposed -origin of the Ionic one. Nay, it is even valuable and instructive, as -showing how well a skilful artist can derive hints from trivial or -accidental circumstances, and by improving upon them, turn them to -account. As the story goes, the sculptor Callicrates was so struck by -the graceful forms into which the leaves of an acanthus plant had grown -up around a tall basket covered by a square slab, that he sketched -it, and conceived the idea of fashioning the capital of a column -after it. It must be owned that the anecdote seems itself to be an -invention intended to account poetically for the origin of such form -of capital, and perhaps on no better grounds than that of a fancied -general resemblance,—just as some dreamers have detected the origin of -the Gothic style in an avenue of lofty over-arching trees, or in the -interlacing stems of a framing of wicker-work. Unluckily for the credit -of so respectable a legend, the earliest examples exhibit, instead of -the strongest and most direct resemblance to the presumed prototype, -the faintest and most vague of all. The Corinthian capital seems rather -to have developed itself gradually out of the Doric one; first, by its -necking being deepened and ornamented with a row of leaves, and then -afterwards the echinus suppressed, and the whole body of the capital -made to expand in a concave curve up to the abacus, with a second row -of plain and flatter leaves above the first one. At least the capitals -to the small columns of the porches of the Tower of the Winds at -Athens, and others discovered at Miletus and elsewhere, seem to favour -such hypothesis; and in further evidence of such Doric derivation -is the circumstance of the columns of the Tower of the Winds being -without bases. It will be argued, perhaps, that such examples do not -all answer to the character afterwards established and adhered to for -capitals belonging to that Order. Very true: but then they may surely -be received as incipient efforts and attempts towards the formation -of a third class of capitals; and in the instances just referred to, -the overhanging square abacus without any foliage or curling tendrils -spreading out to support its extremities, points, in our opinion, -clearly enough to a derivation from the Doric capital, considerably -enlarged downwards, and also greatly enriched. However, we leave others -either to adopt or reject this notion, just as they may be disposed. -At the best, all such questions are little better than matters of idle -curiosity, and must always remain questions after all. - -To quit conjecture for fact, the fact is the Corinthian Order does -not appear to have been ever matured into a distinct style and -complete system by the Greeks. There is, indeed, one solitary Athenian -example of Corinthian, which exhibits the utmost refinement of -exquisite richness attempered by exquisite delicacy. In the Lysicrates -capital,—as we will for convenience call it (the example alluded to -being that of the monument of Lysicrates, otherwise called the Lantern -of Demosthenes, at Athens),—foliation may be said to have attained its -culminating point: rivalled it may be, but hardly surpassed. Still it -must be confessed, as a whole, that Order leaves much to be desired -for it, there being nothing of corresponding beauty and luxuriance in -the rest of it. The cornice, for instance, is only a simple dentelled -Ionic one, nor are any of the mouldings of the entablature cut. There -was, however, in that particular case, above the entablature, what -fully counterbalances and carries out the idea and expression of the -capitals, namely, the ornamental roofing, and the matchless finial -which crowns the structure, and produces a full climax of beauty and of -grace. Charming as the original itself is, or, more correctly speaking, -_was_, it has perhaps been more blunderingly copied and imitated -than almost any other antique structure. Although the whole—its -lofty-proportioned basement included—is not above 36 feet high, a copy -of it, or what calls itself such, has sometimes been hoisted up on the -top of a lofty tower, or raised on a modern church or chapel to serve -as its belfry; or else the columns and entablature have been taken just -verbatim, and applied, by way of change, as an Order, upon a scale for -which the capitals, at least, were never intended. The Strand front or -entrance of Exeter Hall consists of a loggia with lofty columns of the -kind, whose capitals, being placed at such a height, show as no better -than heavy sculptured masses whose details it is impossible, or at -least requires great patience, to make out. More preposterously still, -the Girard College at Philadelphia plumes itself upon exhibiting an -exact copy of this Order, where the columns are magnified to the height -of between fifty and sixty feet, so that all that can be made out of -the capital is, that it is exceedingly rich,—by very far too much so -for any other part or feature in the building;—and that is called being -classical! - -Let us now consider the Corinthian Order in its general and prominent -characteristics, belonging to all varieties of it alike. Although -the Order itself is the most delicate and lightest of the three, -the capital is the largest, being considerably more than a diameter -in height,—upon the average, about a diameter and a quarter. This, -however, will cause the reader no surprise, if he bears in mind what -has been before said as to the proportion to be observed between the -column and its capital. The taller the former is, the taller must -be the latter also, and so far bulkier; although, while actually -increasing its bulk, its tallness corrects the appearance of heaviness -by giving the _proportion_ of slenderness. A capital whose height is -only half a diameter is, of course, by no means positively so bulky as -one which is upwards of an entire diameter in height, but then it is -much bulkier or broader in its proportions, being about twice as broad -as it is high,—whereas the other is much higher than it is wide. This -explanation makes, we hope, the matter sufficiently clear, and that -after it the reader will not feel himself at all puzzled about it. - -The capital has two rows of leaves, eight in each row, so disposed that -of the taller ones composing the upper row, one comes in the middle, -beneath each face of the abacus, and the lower leaves _alternate_ -with the upper ones, coming between the stems of the latter; so that -in the first or lower tier of leaves there is in the middle of each -face a space between two leaves occupied by the stem of the central -leaf above them. Over these two rows is a third series of four leaves, -turned so as to support the small volutes which, in turn, support the -angles of the abacus. Besides these outer volutes, which are invariably -turned diagonally, as in the four-faced Ionic capital, there are two -other smaller ones, termed _caulicoli_, which meet each other beneath -a flower on the face of the abacus. The abacus itself is differently -shaped from what it is in either of the other two Orders. In the Doric -it is, as we have seen, merely a thick square slab, fitting the echinus -beneath it, and left perfectly plain. In the Ionic it is square, but -its sides are moulded, whether they are carved or not. The Corinthian -abacus, on the contrary, is not, properly speaking, a square, although -it may be said to be so in its general form, inasmuch as it possesses -_squareness_, having four equal sides. Instead of being straight, the -sides of the abacus are concave in plan, being curved outwards so as -to produce a sharp point at each corner, which is accordingly cut off. -Thus we find that the abacus here assumes a very different shape from -its original one; yet merely to know this is to know very little. Such -form of it is of course a distinction, but it was not for the sake of -distinction that it was adopted. It grew out of intention and purpose: -it was dictated by necessity—by artistic necessity at least, which -requires that the abacus should be adjusted to and conform to the upper -part of the capital, so that they fit each other. Now a square abacus -would not at all suit a capital whose foliage spreads out so widely at -its angles. We have spoken of the capitals of the Tower of the Winds, -as, according to our opinion, showing the earliest formation of what we -now call the Corinthian capital. In that example the abacus is square, -and the upper row of leaves are of the kind called _water-leaves_, from -their resemblance to those of water-plants, being broad and flat, and -merely carved upon the _vase_ or body of the capital. The next stage -of progress or transition was to add larger curling leaves and volutes -to support the angles of the abacus; but then if the abacus remained -square as before, it would either overhang the capital too much in the -centre of each face of it, or would not cover the enlarged sweep of -the leaves and volutes at the angles. Consequently, it was necessary to -effect both extension and reduction for the abacus,—extension at its -angles, and reduction as regards its general bulk, which beforehand -apparently very difficult, if not impossible feat, was accomplished -in the simplest manner possible, by merely curving the sides of the -abacus. Thus not only is the abacus expressly shaped in conformity with -the great projection of the leaves, &c., at the four angles of the -capital,[3] but a beautiful contrast, contributing to general harmony, -ensues in consequence,—the concave sides of the abacus corresponding -antithetically—in other words, contrasting with the general convexity -of the capital. - -The general structure and configuration of the Corinthian capital are -now described, and, it is to be hoped, understood also. It may be -as well, however, just to recapitulate: the body of the capital is -surrounded by two rows of leaves, eight in each row; besides which -there are four leaves, which, with the volutes over them, serve to -support the four angles of the abacus, which is fashioned as we have -just been explaining. Simple and limited as these elementary and -_constitutional_ forms may be thought to be,—insufficient for any -great variety or range of character, the Corinthian capital admits of -almost infinite modification. Putting entirely aside all details and -their minutiæ, the capital of this Order is susceptible of very great -diversity of character in regard to its general proportions alone, as -may be seen by a comparison of a few—and they but a very _few_—examples -given in a note below.[4] - -[3] For similar reason, the same concavity in the sides of the abacus -takes place in the four-faced Ionic capital, the abacus being so shaped -in order that it may subtend over and cover the diagonally turned -volutes. - -[4] We place these examples according to their respective proportional -heights, beginning with the highest, and descending to the lowest, -and note their measurements in _minutes_ rather than in diameters -and fractional parts, as being the most direct and convenient mode -of comparison. The height of the capital is taken exclusive of the -astragal which divides it from the shaft of the column; and as the -_expansion_ of the capital upwards has also to be considered, the -extreme width of the abacus is also indicated. - -Height of Diagonal of capital. abacus. - -Lysicrates example 87' 94' Nerva do. (columns of the Forum of Nerva) -73' 90' Pantheon at Rome 69' 90' Jupiter Stator, Temple of, 66' 97' -Tivoli, Temple of the Sibyls, 60' 81' - -Almost every antique example is marked by something peculiar to itself; -wherefore, properly to analyze them and compare them all, would require -not only some scores, but some hundreds of drawings, and hundreds -might be multiplied into thousands, were we to collect together all -the varieties of the descendants of the Corinthian or foliaged-capital -column that are to be found in buildings of the so-called Byzantine -style, when the original idea of an Order had been entirely lost -sight of. In fact, all the compositions that have been produced with -the intention of producing a _new_, and what as such ought to be a -perfectly distinct Order, congruent in all its parts, have consisted of -little more than variations of the Corinthian capital; as if difference -in the details of the capital sufficed to constitute a different and -quite distinct Order. Properly understood, _Order_ is, if not exactly -so, little more than another word for style; and a new style is not to -be invented or established, like the alteration from old to new style -of the almanac by Act of Parliament. Style must of necessity grow up -gradually: the ideas of many minds must contribute to its formation. - -From the examples whose proportions are stated in the preceding note, -it will be seen that the height of the capital varies from 60', or -just a diameter, to 87', or nearly half as much again; although it -must be allowed that the latter is a very unusual degree of height, -nor does that example (the Lysicrates one) belong, like the others, -to the Roman Corinthian class. Reserving our remarks on one or two -particular specimens of the latter till after we have spoken generally -of the other parts of the Order, we continue by saying that the proper -Corinthian base differs from that of the usual Ionic or Attic in having -two smaller scotiæ, separated by two astragals: however, both kinds are -employed indiscriminately, and the Attic is that which is generally -used, except a greater degree of delicacy and richness than ordinary -be required. As the shaft is fluted similarly to that of the Ionic -column, viz. with twenty-four channels, there is nothing for notice or -remark there, unless it be that the flutes are sometimes _cabled_, as -it is called, that is, the channels are hollowed out for only about -two-thirds of the upper part of the shaft, and the remainder cut so -that each channel has the appearance of being partly filled up by a -round staff or piece of rope, whence the term _cabling_. Though not -approved by puritan critics,—who, nevertheless, wink at, or else are -blind to much greater licenses,—this mode of fluting certainly gives -an expression of greater strength to the lower part of the column, -and, by contrast, that of greater delicacy to the upper one. Although -fluting, for the columns, seems to have been considered by the Ancients -essential to the character of this Order, the Moderns appear to -consider it quite a matter of indifference, and what may be omitted _at -discretion_. Undoubtedly there are several antique examples exceedingly -richly decorated in all other respects, yet with the shafts of the -columns unfluted; but then that was for very good reason, the shafts -being either of polished granite, or precious marble, whose intrinsic -value and beauty fully supplied the place of further embellishment. - -ENTABLATURE.—The architrave is generally divided into three faciæ, -(the lower one much narrower than the others, which is rather contrary -to architectonic principle, the weaker member being placed under -heavier ones,) with mouldings between them, which, though frequently -left plain, are properly enriched in the best and most consistently -finished-up examples. We pass over the frieze, that being merely a -single surface, either plain or sculptured. The cornice is very much -larger than in the other Orders,—larger as to height, and consequently -as to projection also; which increased height and projection, and we -may add, increased richness, are demanded by the greatly enlarged -bulk of the capital and its more elaborate decoration. Examples vary -so greatly that we can give only approximating mean and average -proportions, which may be set down at about 2 diam. 12' for the whole -entablature, and 54', or something less than a diameter, for the -cornice; but it is in many instances more, in others as much less. -As may be supposed from this greatly increased depth of the cornice, -it consists of a greater number of mouldings beneath the corona, for -that and the cymatium over it invariably retain their places as the -crowning members of the whole series of mouldings. To the dentels of -the Ionic cornice is added a row of _modillions_, immediately beneath -and supporting the corona. These modillions are ornamental blocks, -curved in their under surface somewhat after the manner of the letter S -turned thus [symbol]; and between them and the dentels, and also below -the latter, are other mouldings, sometimes cut, at others left plain. -Sometimes a plain uncut _dentel band_ is substituted for dentels; -sometimes, in simpler cornices, that is omitted altogether, and plainer -blocks are employed instead of modillions; or else both dentels and -modillions are omitted, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, -notwithstanding that it is considerably enriched, even the face of the -corona being fluted. - -[Illustration] - -Besides the several varieties of the Corinthian shown in the whole -composition of the Order, or the columns and entablature together, -there are numerous fragmentary examples existing, either in single -columns or capitals alone, or in cornices and other parts of -entablatures; some of which display such prodigality of decoration -and such difference of character from the usual Corinthian, that they -might very well pass for belonging to a distinct Order, if that variety -which is classed as a separate one, under the name of COMPOSITE, can -with any propriety be reckoned such, merely because the volutes at the -angles of the capital are expanded into the proportions of those in the -Roman Ionic capital. - -The very dissimilar varieties to be met with, all belonging to one and -the same Order, show plainly enough that the Architects of antiquity -considered themselves at liberty to design their own detail, and to -treat an Order as a composition marked out for them in its leading -forms and general proportions, but which they might fashion nearly _ad -libitum_ in other respects. Modern Architects adopt a contrary course, -which, if not particularly artistic, or even rational, is certainly -convenient; although in spite of all precaution to secure conformity -and maintain architectural orthodoxy, grievous licentiousness will -creep in. It is something to get what is only a faithful copy of an -ancient example, but it is only very rarely we get even that. For -instance, fluting is omitted for the columns where such decoration -may be required, in order to make them correspond with the degree of -richness given to the entablature; or else it is the latter with -which wholesale liberty is taken,—mouldings which in the cornice of -the original are more or less enriched, being left plain, or a bare -frieze substituted for a sculptured one, and other little liberties of -that kind, which are considered perfectly allowable, and to make hardly -any real difference, although they in fact alter the character of the -whole composition. Either the original is itself faulty, or it must -suffer by _piecemeal_ alteration. It will, perhaps, bear to be somewhat -reduced in richness, or, _vice versâ_, to have a greater degree of -decoration given it; but in whichever way such kind of alteration takes -place, it should be conducted uniformly for the whole composition. No -excellence of proportions can atone for _disproportion_ in regard to -consistency of embellishment, and for the general disharmony of the -whole composition. Italian Architects not unfrequently either overload -their compositions with ornament, or leave them quite bare, and make no -scruple of putting a cornice of the most meagre description, without -either dentels or modillions, to an Order whose capitals denote it to -be intended for Ionic or Corinthian. - -It was, perhaps, fortunate both for Sir John Soane, and that example -of the Corinthian which he employed for the Bank of England, that it -was not an invention of his own, or it would, in all probability, have -been ridiculed as a monstrosity; and he would have been thought to -have there out-Soaned himself in whimsicality and capriciousness. As -it happens to be, however, an express copy from the circular Temple -at Tivoli, people are at liberty to admire it, more especially as the -mere application of it for the first time in this country—the only one -where it has been adopted—does not exalt Soane into the successful -inventor of a ‘new Order.’ In the system of the Orders it may certainly -be regarded as a newly-discovered planet, being so distinct from every -other example of the foliaged-capital class; distinct not only in the -capital itself, but in all its members, in all its proportions, in the -style of all its details, and, consequently, in its character. The -height of the column is only 9·25' diameters; the capital, measured -from above the astragal, only 1 diameter, and the entablature only -1·42' diameter. These proportions give the whole Order a certain -expression of masculine simplicity, more especially as the column is -hardly diminished at all, the difference between the upper and lower -diameter amounting to no more than 4', or only ¹/₁₅th of the larger -diameter, that being of course 60', and the other 56'. The base -consists of two _tori_, but instead of the usual scotiæ between, there -is merely a narrow plain fillet, and a second broader one, overhung by -the upper torus. Besides which, another peculiarity is, that the lower -torus is somewhat detached from the surface on which the column stands, -by a very narrow but deep incision beneath it,—a mode of treatment -quite different from the usual one of placing the base upon a square -plinth, but which, different as it is, does not produce, as might be -supposed, any appearance of weakness, the incision being no more than -a mere line—a delicate artistic touch. The fluting (at least the mode -in which the flutes are terminated) is not a little remarkable; for -below, they and the fillets are continued, and die into the upper edge -of the base; while above, they are terminated horizontally instead -of by a semicircular curve, as in all other examples of both Ionic -and Corinthian fluting. The capital is so exceedingly peculiar in -conformation and detail as to defy verbal description. The leaves -have nothing in common with those of the usual acanthus; the volutes -are of peculiar shape, and the flower which ornaments the abacus -is as singularly large, and descends to the top of the upper leaf: -boldness and breadth of parts characterize the whole composition, and -also that of the entablature. As all its mouldings are uncut, this -last would be much too plain to be in keeping with the column, were -not the frieze sculptured with rich and ‘bossy’ festoons in the same -energetic style as the capitals. Such ornamentation of the frieze is -absolutely part and parcel of the Order; and the value of it will be -best understood by comparing those parts of the Bank, in which it is -retained, with others in which it is omitted. The same Order, with -the frieze enriched, has also been since employed in the front of St. -Paul’s School, St. Paul’s Churchyard; but there, owing to windows and -other disturbing circumstances, its effect is greatly impaired, as -is the case even in the centre of the south front of the Bank itself, -where it differs widely from the beautiful loggia at the north-west -angle of that edifice, and compared with which it manifests in the part -first mentioned a sad falling off, becoming no better than a dull, -spiritless, prosaic version of its real self. In a word, it is out of -its element. - -[Illustration] - -The next, and it must be the last example which can here be noticed, -is that of the so-called ‘Jupiter Stator,’ which may be said to -exhibit _Corinthianism_ in its fullest luxuriance. Great as is the -dissimilarity between this and the preceding example of the Order, they -are alike in one respect, each being perfect in its way, complete, and -harmonious in all its parts; and we ought to be thankful that two such -opposite specimens of one and the same—namely, the foliaged-capital -style—have been preserved to us for our admiration, and for our -instruction also, as if on purpose to convince us what opposite kinds -of beauty may be arrived at where, though the general configuration of -the Order is adhered to, a different spirit and character are infused -into it. Of the example now referred to, the character is elaborate -richness subdued by refined taste. Though of lower proportions than -usual, the capital is singularly ornate, and a corresponding degree -of ornateness is diffused over the entire Order. The second or middle -facia of the architrave, and all the members of the cornice, except -the dentels and the cymatium over the corona, are sculptured, and the -whole is consistently finished up in every part. The first application -among us of this superb example of the Corinthian was in Holland’s -beautiful portico to Carlton House, where, instead of being moderated, -its richness was even augmented, the bases of the columns being carved, -and the frieze sculptured. That portico has disappeared: the columns, -indeed, still remain, having been used for the portico of the National -Gallery, but the Order itself exists no more—at least not there. -Another copy of it we now have in the Treasury Buildings, Whitehall, -where it was applied by Soane, but with no great judgment or taste, -his building being quite at variance with the Order he selected for -it, the former being any thing but Corinthian in character. Perhaps he -selected it, as we have done, for the purpose of exhibiting in two of -his works such very distinct styles of Corinthian as are the Tivoli and -the Jupiter Stator Orders. As now altered by Mr. Barry, the Treasury -Buildings have received a great accession of richness, and the frieze, -which was before plain, is now ornamented. But the Order itself is -not improved, at least does not show itself to the same advantage as -before, by being raised so much higher above the eye than it was at -first; it looks comparatively diminished, and the beauty of its details -is lost. We have, indeed, the Order; and nothing is wanting but that -impressiveness and effect which gave such charm to the portico of -Carlton House. - -As to that variety of the Corinthian which passes under the name -of _Composite_, the reader may now, after what has been said and -shown, be left to judge whether it can with any propriety be classed -as a distinct Order, instead of being reckoned merely as a variety -of the other, and by no means the most striking variety of that -foliaged-capital class. The difference between the two extends to no -more than a part of the detail of the capital, the general normal -character or Corinthianism of which is no way affected. And if the -Ionic Order be allowed to comprehend many decidedly marked varieties -of the voluted-capital type, there surely can be no necessity for -splitting Doric and Corinthian, and getting out of them the Tuscan and -Composite Orders. It will, perhaps, be fancied by some that by thus -reducing the number of the Orders to three, we in some degree limit the -resources which the Architect derives from them. The fact, however, is -precisely the reverse; for although we limit them in number, we set no -limits to their respective powers. A hundred different examples, each -marked by individual character, or peculiarity of treatment, may yet -all belong to the same generic type or order. Ancient examples are not -to be considered merely as _patterns_, to be copied mechanically, but -as studies for the Architect’s guidance and instruction. - - -COLUMNIATION. - -Columns and entablatures in themselves do not, properly speaking, -constitute an Order, although they serve as specimens of it. They must -enter into and regulate the organization of a structure before they -can become by composition what is, strictly speaking, an Order. As -exhibited in their temples, the system of columniation practised by the -Ancients was strictly organic and natural. Instead of being something -accessory, supplementary to, and independent of the fabric, that -might be either omitted or applied at pleasure, as commonly practised -in Italian and modern composition, the Order itself constituted the -exterior of the building, at least of that side or front of it where it -was introduced, when it was not continued throughout; so that the Order -and its dimensions once established, and the mode of intercolumniation -determined, the edifice shaped itself. Before we enter upon the subject -of intercolumniation, it will be desirable to explain the various forms -of temples, and the technical terms by which they are distinguished. - -The _naos_, or _cella_, as it is more usually called, or temple itself, -was comparatively small, even where the entire mass was of considerable -size, gradual extension of plan being produced not so much by any -great enlargement of the interior as by external columniation and its -gradual development. It is probable that the earliest Greek temples -consisted of the _naos_ only, and were accordingly plain ASTYLAR -buildings, or without columns, except in front or at the entrance -end, where an enclosed porch was formed by introducing columns, by -continuing the side walls, and placing columns between them _in -antis_, that is, between the two _antæ_ or pilasters forming the ends -of those walls. The next step seems to have been to advance the porch -before the main building, instead of keeping it recessed within the -side walls, thereby converting it from a portico in antis, into a -_prostyle_, or projecting line of columns: thus a _distyle in antis_, -or a portico consisting of two columns between antæ, consequently of -three _intercolumns_, or open spaces between the antæ and columns, -would become a _tetrastyle_, or projecting portico of four columns and -three intercolumns. By the other end of the building being similarly -treated, the temple became _amphiprostyle_, or prostyle at both ends, -in rear as well as in front, the sides still remaining _astylar_. The -next and last style of advancement was to continue columniation all -round, enclosing the _cella_ within colonnades along its sides as well -as at its ends, which disposition of plan is expressed by the terms -_peristyle_, or _peristylar_, and _peripteral_, which of necessity -produces two columns and two intercolumns more in front; for what would -otherwise be merely a tetrastyle prostyle, with four columns and three -intercolumns (the number of the latter being always one less than that -of the others), becomes by the colonnades being continued along the -side, a _hexastyle_ (_six_ columns and _five_ intercolumns); or if -originally a prostyle hexastyle, it would be rendered an _octastyle_ -(_eight_ columns and _seven_ intercolumns), and so on.[5] It should be -observed, too, that a building cannot at the same time be _peristylar_ -and have a _prostyle_ portico, the latter being merged in the general -columniation, instead of projecting from the rest of the edifice as -a distinct feature. Of peristylar temples there were two sorts, viz. -those with a single row of columns on each side, and those which have -two, which last are distinguished by the term _dipteral_, i. e. having -two wings or _aisles_ on each side. Although it did not at all affect -the general external appearance, notwithstanding that it extended the -plan by adding two more columns and intercolumns to the front, this -last-mentioned mode was attended with greater richness of columniation, -and the inner columns contributed not a little to variety of effect and -play of perspective; besides which, greater sheltered space was gained -for ambulatories; whereas in the usual simple peristyle, where the -space between the outer columns and the walls of the cella was limited -to the width of a single intercolumn, the side colonnades were mere -narrow passages, very little wider—at least in Doric temples—than the -diameter of the columns themselves, consequently of very little actual -service. In what is called the _pseudo-dipteral_ mode, more of clear -space within the colonnades was provided by omitting the inner columns, -which mode reduced the plan to that of a simple peristyle, the only -difference being, that instead of the width of a single intercolumn, -a clear space, equal to two intercolumns and one column, was gained -for the ambulatories. The Temple of Jupiter at Selinus was of this -description, and being only octastyle in front,—the least possible -width for a dipteral or pseudo-dipteral plan,—of the seven front -intercolumns, four (_i. e._ two on each side) were given to the lateral -colonnades, and only three left for the breadth of the _cella_, which -must have looked like a smaller edifice standing within a colonnaded -and covered enclosure. - -[5] By way of illustrating these terms more directly by instances -taken from well-known modern porticoes which answer to the respective -denominations and distinctions above noted, we here give a classified -list of some of them: - -Distyle { Two columns } St. Paul’s, Covent Garden. in antis. { & two -antæ. } Three } inter- { Hanover Chapel, Regent Street. Tetrastyle. -Four columns. } columns. { *Covent Garden Theatre. - -{ St. George’s Church, { Bloomsbury. { *St. George’s, Hanover Square. -{ St. Martin’s Church. { Five { *St. Pancras’ Church. Hexastyle. Six -columns. { inter- { India House. { columns. { Post Office. { *College -of Surgeons. { *College of Physicians. { *Colosseum. - -{ Seven { National Gallery. Octastyle. Eight columns. { inter- { Royal -Exchange. { columns. { British Museum. - -{ Nine } Decastyle. Ten columns. { inter- } London University College. -{ columns. } - -The porticoes marked with the * are simple prostyles, or -_monoprostyle_, advancing only a single intercolumn forwarder than the -rest of the building; while the others are _diprostyle_, or show two -open intercolumns on their flanks; except Hanover Chapel, whose portico -is partly prostyle and partly recessed, and that of the India House, -which is entirely recessed, although its elevation is not a composition -_in antis_; had it been such, it would have been a _tetrastyle in -antis_, that and a hexastyle having the same number of intercolumns, -viz. five. - -The above few and simple arrangements of plan are nearly all the -varieties that the Greek temple style offers; and some of them are -little better than distinctions without differences, inasmuch as the -differences do not affect general external appearance. Peripteral, -dipteral, and pseudo-dipteral, all agree in the main point, and the two -latter answer to the name of peripteral as well as the first, being -merely modifications of it. Great as were its æsthetic beauties, Greek -Architecture was—why should we scruple to confess it?—exceedingly -limited in its compass and power of expression: what it did, it did -admirably, but it confined itself too much to one idea. “When you have -seen one green field,” says Johnson, “you have seen all green fields;” -and so we may say of Greek temples,—when you have seen one or two of -them, you have seen all of them. However they may differ from one -another as to the treatment of the Order adopted for them, the number -of their columns, and mere particulars of that kind, they resemble each -other very nearly in all leading points. Not only were their plans -invariably parallelograms, but alike also as to proportion, forming a -double square, or being about twice as much in length as in breadth; -for so exceedingly _methodical_ was the Greek system, that the number -of columns on the flanks or sides of a peripteral temple was regulated -and determined by the number of those in front. The number of the -columns in front was invariably an even one, as otherwise there would -be no middle intercolumn; but on the flanks of the edifice, where there -was no entrance, the number of the intercolumns was an even, and that -of the columns an uneven one, so that a column came in the centre of -these side elevations. - -As to the mode in which the front influenced the sides by determining -the number of columns for them, the established rule seems to have -been to give the flanks twice as many intercolumns as there were -columns at each end: thus the Parthenon, which is octastyle, has -_sixteen_ intercolumns, consequently seventeen columns, on each flank. -In like manner, a hexastyle temple would have _twelve_ intercolumns -and thirteen columns on its sides. There are, however, exceptions; -for instance, the temple at Selinus, which has been mentioned as an -example of the pseudo-dipteral mode of columniation, is an octastyle, -with sixteen, or just twice as many columns on its sides as in front; -consequently the intercolumns are only fifteen, and being uneven in -number, there is a middle one, as in the front itself. After all, the -difference caused by there being an intercolumn more or less than usual -is but a very slight one, such as is to be ascertained only by counting -the columns, and such as not to occasion any perceptible difference in -the general physiognomy of the building.[6] - -[6] Should the reader be quite fresh to the subject, he is recommended -to draw out for himself,—merely roughly mark down,—the several -dispositions of columns which have been spoken of; for by compelling -him to consider them carefully, he will be better able to understand -them, and have them distinctly impressed upon his memory. The annexed -may serve as a specimen of such short-hand architectural notation, in -asterisks. - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * - * Peripteral Hexastyle, * - * 12 intercolumns * - * on sides. * - * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - -Besides the restriction as to general proportion of plan, namely, the -fixed relationship between the length and the breadth of the building, -proportion with regard to height was limited in a different way, and in -such a manner that the character of increased richness and importance -derived from a greater number of columns was attended, not indeed by -decreased height, but by _decreased loftiness_, or proportional height, -that is, height as measured by either breadth or length. Paradoxical as -this may sound at first, nothing can be more clear when once explained. -Discarding nicety of measurement, we will call a _tetrastyle_ portico -about a square in height, that is, about as high as wide; but add four -more columns, extend it from a tetrastyle to an octastyle, so that it -becomes about a double square in breadth, or twice as wide again, and -the inevitable consequence is, that it is then only half as high as -wide; that is, as to proportion, only half as _lofty_ as it was before. -The expression of _loftiness_, in which altitude greatly predominates -over breadth, was quite beyond the reach of the Greek system. Their -temples might be planted on lofty eminences, but the structures -themselves never towered upwards. As far as it went, their system was -perfect,—so complete indeed in itself as to be unfit for almost any -other purposes than that for which it was expressly framed. - -If the Romans corrupted the Greek Orders, the Doric and Ionic, they -developed and matured the Corinthian Order, and also worked out a -freer and more complex and comprehensive system of Architecture. To -say nothing of their introduction and application of those important -elements of both construction and design, the arch and vault—which -hardly belong to a mere treatise on the Orders—it is to the Romans that -we are indebted for varieties and combinations of plan that will be -sought for in vain among Grecian structures. - -Of the Romans it may be said, “Mutant quadrata _rotundis_,”—circular -forms and curves displaying themselves not only in elevation and -section, but in plan; and while, among the Greeks, Architecture was -confined almost exclusively to external appearance and effect, in the -hands of the Romans it was made to minister to internal display of -the most enchantingly picturesque kind, as would be amply attested -by the Pantheon alone. In that edifice, and Hadrian’s Mausoleum (now -barbarized into the Castello di S. Angelo), the cylindrical form was -exhibited upon an imposing scale; in the Temple at Tivoli, in far -lesser dimensions, but with most captivating taste; and again in -the Tomb of Cæcilia Metella, we have a fine example of an unbroken -_astylar_ circular mass. In such structures as the Colosseum and -other Roman Amphitheatres, a different form of curvature, namely, -the ellipsis, was employed with admirable propriety and effect. In -interiors, again, we find the hemicycle or concave semicircular form -both frequently and variously applied by the Romans in such edifices as -their Baths, which afford many excellent studies for combinations of -_plan_. - -To enter into the system of Roman Architecture as the subject itself -would require, would very far exceed our present purpose and limits; -much less can we pretend to treat here of the still more varied and -complex Italian or Modern-European system, into which _fenestration_ -so largely enters, _columniation_ being, more frequently than not, -subordinate. Were we to touch upon the last-mentioned style and its -various elements, it could be only so superficially as to be more -disappointing than instructive. Better that the reader should admire -our forbearance than complain of our unsatisfactory jejuneness. We may, -however, permit ourselves to throw out one or two general remarks; -the first of which is, that it is a great error to confound with the -Italian the two Ancient Classical styles, applying to them alike the -epithet ‘Grecian,’ merely in contradistinction to Gothic or Mediæval -Architecture. It is absurd, too, to pretend to test by the Greek style, -one so totally differently constituted as the Italian; an error that -could hardly have been fallen into but for the practice of applying -the same names to very different things. The term ‘Order’ has quite -a different meaning, as applied to the original classical mode of -the Art, from what it has in the other. In Italian composition, an -Order is more frequently than not, mere decoration in the shape of -columns and entablatures, fashioned _secundum artem_ (a very different -thing from _artistically_), so as to resemble in detail and certain -conventional distinctions those of the Ancients. Infinitely better -would it have been, if, instead of allowing themselves to be misled by -the pedantry of Vitruvius, the Architects of the so-called Revival, -who showed much happiness of invention in other respects, had treated -the Orders freely; or perhaps still better, had they worked out ideas -of their own for columns and entablatures, whenever they had occasion -for them either as matters of necessity, or as mere decoration. Had -the Italians allowed themselves greater latitude in that respect, they -would, in all probability, have been far less licentious upon the whole -than they frequently were, and their buildings would have been more -homogeneous—more of a piece. But they must, forsooth, be Doric, Ionic, -or Corinthian, ofttimes all the three at once, and a very great deal -else into the bargain. Therefore the affecting to retain the ancient -Orders in their purity served no other purpose than that of making all -the more evident how completely their first intention and character had -been lost sight of. - -The clinging with scrupulous punctilio to what had become dead-letter -forms after the system which had produced them had been abandoned and -exchanged for another and widely different one, was merely superstition -and pedantry. It might show acquaintance with traditional learning -and the writings of Vitruvius; but it also showed dulness of æsthetic -feeling, or, what is not much better, deficiency of æsthetic power. -There was, however, one mode of applying columns, which, although -generally regarded as the most licentious and unorthodox,—nay, even -preposterous, because quite contrary to all classical practice and -precedent,—has at least one propriety, that of being rational, since -columns there officiate as columns—as real supports; whereas in a -great deal of Modern Architecture that is admired for the correct -taste it displays, columns and their entablatures are mere expletives, -instead of actual component parts of the fabric, and simulate a mode of -construction neither required for nor practised in the fabric itself. -The particular mode here alluded to is that in which arches are not -only introduced together with columns, but the arches and columns -are so indissolubly married together that they cannot be divorced, -inasmuch as the arches are supported by the columns themselves, the -former springing immediately from the capitals of the latter.[7] -Such combination, it might be supposed, would be gladly admitted as -sufficiently legitimate, both because in accordance with rational -architectonic principles, and because it greatly extends the resources -of the Art; nevertheless, such is the omnipotence of prejudice, that -instead of being welcomed and adopted by us, it has been decried as -a barbarism. As an irresistible and crushing argument against it, -we are told that columns were not _originally_ intended to be so -applied;—admirable logic, truly! There are a great many other things -besides columns which have in course of time come to be applied to -uses not originally contemplated. In regard to that combination of -columns and arches according to which the latter spring immediately -from the others, and are supported by them, there are two questions: -the first and practical one is; Do the columns afford sufficient -support?—the second and æsthetic one is; Is there also appearance of -sufficient support; or, is there any thing contradictory to principle, -to judgment, and good taste? The first question needs no answer, -since it answers itself, it being an indisputable fact that columns -so employed do answer the purpose to which they are turned. The other -question is not so easily answered: the prejudiced will of course -answer it according to their own contracted taste and narrow notions, -condemning the mode alluded to, without any inquiry into its merits -and advantages, merely on the ground of its being quite at variance -with the classical system of _trabeated_ columniation, that is, with -columns supporting a horizontal architrave and entablature, or general -horizontal _trabeation_. That by the substitution of arches for -architraves, the character of the Greek system is forfeited, cannot be -denied; but then another character is established, whose difference -from the original one ought not to be made its condemnation. To demand -of a different mode that it should resemble and conform to the laws -of that from which it differs, is absurdity in the extreme, for it is -requiring that it should be at once a different one and the same. To -compare different styles is a very useful sort of study; but to make -any one style the criterion or standard by which others are to be -judged, is preposterous. - -[7] This mode of uniting together columns and arches is perfectly -legitimate, whereas that in which a fragment of the usual entablature -is left sticking or added to each column, (as, for instance, in -the interior of St. Martin’s Church,) is decidedly solecistical, -since it is injuriously reminiscent of _epistylar_ construction or -trabeation,—is in itself unmeaning, and causes the columns to appear -to have been too short, and therefore to have been eked out in height -by blocks upon them, fashioned to resemble so many detached bits of an -entablature. - -The style in which the arch and column enter into direct combination -with each other, and for which there is no specific name, has at all -events some economical recommendations, inasmuch as shorter columns, -and fewer of them, are required, than would be necessary for the same -height and length according to the trabeated mode. In itself, too, -it possesses much ‘capability;’ yet, as is the case with every other -style, the merit of the works produced in it depends upon the manner in -which it is treated, and the talent brought to it. There is no style of -the Art so poetical that the flattest prose may not be made out of it; -and hardly any so utterly prosaic as to be incapable of being kindled -into poetry by the Promethean torch of geniality—artistic treatment, -and, _con amore_, æsthetic feeling. - - -INTERCOLUMNIATION. - -Although Intercolumniation consists only in regulating and determining -the spaces between the columns, and consequently does not affect the -nature of the composition,—for a tetrastyle, hexastyle, &c., would -still be such, no matter how narrow or wide the _intercolumns_ or -intervals between the columns may be,—very much depends upon it, with -regard to expression and effect. How intercolumniation is regulated in -the Doric Order has been already explained at page 20: in that, the -distances between the columns is governed entirely by the triglyphs of -the frieze, so that there can be no medium between _monotriglyphic and -ditriglyphic_ intercolumniation, accordingly as there is either one or -two triglyphs over each intercolumn. But in the other Orders there -is no such restriction; in them the intercolumns may be made wider or -narrower, as circumstances require, but of course under the guidance -of judgment and good taste; for what is left _à discrétion_ is not -always very discreetly used. Vitruvius and his followers, however, have -not cared to trust to individual discretion or indiscretion, but have -fixed certain positive and distinct modes of intercolumniation, viz. -five,—perhaps out of compliment to the _five_ Orders, to wit: - - Pycnostyle, or _closely set_, in which the - intercolumns are one diameter and a quarter, or a - half, in width. - Systyle, in which they are two diameters wide. - Eustyle, or _well spaced_, in which they are two - diameters and a half. - Diastyle, in which they are three diameters. - Aræostyle, or _thinly set_, in which they are four - diameters. - -Let us repudiate for Architecture all such formal act-of-parliament -legislation, and take pycnostyle and aræostyle as the greatest -allowable degree of closeness or of distance at which the columns can -be placed; and it follows that between such maximum and minimum any -intermediate measure is admissible, and that there is no occasion to -fix it positively and arithmetically, and make distinctions which are, -after all, only arbitrary. There are a great many matters in design -which must be left to the Architect, and intercolumniation is one of -them. It is not possible to have precise rules for every thing, neither -is it desirable; for if every thing in it could be done by rule, -Architecture would forfeit its nature as one of the Fine Arts, and be -reduced to a merely mechanical one. What is done by rule can be done by -one man just as well as by another. - -Excepting the terms pycnostyle and aræostyle, which are useful -as expressing the greatest degree of closeness or of openness of -intercolumniation consistent with well-proportioned arrangement, the -others may be dispensed with. To designate one mode as _eustyle_, -_par excellence_, is very much like saying that the proportions -assigned to it, viz. 2·30′ or 2½ diameters, are the very best, and -all the rest comparatively defective; according to which doctrine, -the _monotriglyphic_ mode of intercolumniation usually employed by -the Greeks in their Doric temples, and which answers to the character -of pycnostyle, is not so well proportioned as what is emphatically -called eustyle. Let it be whatever it may, as expressed in terms of the -diameter of the columns, intercolumniation should always deserve the -name of eustyle, or _well-proportioned_, by being such as satisfies -the eye, and contributes to the particular character that befits the -occasion and harmonizes with the other proportions of the structure. -Pycnostyle, or _close spacing_, carries with it the expression of both -richness and strength, the solids or columns being very little less -than the voids or intercolumns. Aræostyle, or _wide spacing_,—and -_ditriglyphic_ Doric intercolumniation may be called such,—produces -an effect of openness and lightness, but also partakes of meagreness -and weakness, owing to the want of sufficient apparent support for -the entablature,—a very frequent fault in Modern Architecture, where -frugality as to columniation has often been allowed to produce a -degree of poverty which contrasts very disagreeably with that of the -decoration affected by the Order itself. Intercolumniation ought to -be made to depend in some measure upon the nature of the composition: -a tetrastyle portico, for instance, or a distyle in antis, admits -of wider intercolumniation than would be suitable for an octastyle, -because pycnostyle, where there are only three intercolumns, would -produce too great narrowness of general proportions for a portico. - -Hardly is there need for observing, that be their proportions what they -may, the intercolumns in a colonnade or portico must be all alike; -nevertheless in a Grecian Doric portico there is, as we have seen, some -difference, the two extreme intercolumns being there narrower by the -width of half a triglyph. There is, besides, another exception from -the general principle, for the centre intercolumn of a portico was -frequently made somewhat wider than the others, in order to mark the -entrance, and the better to display and afford greater space for access -to the door within. - -One mode of columniation and intercolumniation which remains to be -spoken of, is that which has sometimes been practised by Modern -Architects, and combines the two extremes of pycnostyle, or still -closer intercolumniation, and aræostyle. This consists in coupling the -columns and making a wide intercolumn between every pair of columns, -so that as regards the average proportion between solids and voids, -that disposition does not differ from what it would be were the columns -placed singly. Although denounced by some critics, more especially -Algarotti, as altogether licentious and indefensible, and although it -is not to be especially recommended, or indeed practicable on every -occasion, the coupling of columns may, under some circumstances, be -not only excusable, but advisable and proper. As is the case with -almost every thing else in matters of art, all depends upon _how_ it -is done, and whether with or without sufficient reason. That there is -no classical authority for it, is no valid reason against it; in the -constitution of the ancient temples there was nothing to require or -_motive_ it. It may be conceded, however, that coupled columns, forming -a prostyle surmounted by a pediment, are objectionable; because where -so strong a resemblance to the antique model is preserved in other -respects, a departure from it in regard to the disposition of the -columns has a disagreeably disturbing effect. - -Having gone through the Classical Orders, and explained their elements -and constitution, we have performed as much as we purposed, or as we -promised. Within the same compass we might, no doubt, have touched -upon a great deal besides that belongs to the study of Greek and -Roman Architecture, by restricting ourselves to bare matter-of-fact, -and suppressing all comment, and so treating the subject drily and -superficially. Proceeding upon the principle of _multum haud multa_, -we have aimed at nothing more than to initiate the reader in such -manner as to excite interest in the subject, and stimulate to further -inquiry. Should we have effected that, and should we have disabused -him of the prejudices and contracted notions generally entertained in -regard to the Orders, or else armed him against them, we shall have -accomplished the _multum_—the main point of all. _Much_ shall we have -taught, and much will he have learnt, should he now reject the fatal -doctrine of the Five Orders, and relinquish it to school-boys and -school-masters,—to the plodders who work by pattern, and design by rote -and by routine. Much, very much indeed, will have been learnt, by the -reader, should he have learnt or have been put in the way of learning, -to look upon those various compositions in the three several styles of -columniation, which are called Orders, not with the eyes of a Builder -or a Mechanic, but with the intuition and the feeling of an Artist; in -short, to look upon them as general _types_ to be diligently studied, -and then imitated with congenial gusto. - - -GLOSSARIAL INDEX. - -We here make one alphabetical arrangement serve the double purpose -of an Index referring to the pages where the respective matters are -treated of, and of a Glossary affording explanation, or further remark, -as may be, where required. This latter is by no means to be considered -a complete or general Glossary of Architectural Terms, but merely as an -accompaniment to the present Treatise, and a specimen, perhaps, of what -is still a desideratum, namely, a _real Lexicon_—that is, one which -explains _things_ as well as terms—of Ancient and Modern Architecture, -similar to what has been provided with regard to the Mediæval Styles of -the Art. - - ABACUS.—The _plate_ or shallow block forming the - uppermost member of a capital is so called for the - sake of distinction, for when a similar one is - placed beneath the base of a column, it is called - a _plinth_. The Doric abacus is spoken of at page - 14, and is here shown in a plan of the capital - and architrave; _a a a a_ being the angles of the - soffit or underside of the abacus which overhang - the echinus _e e e e_; and _s s_ the soffit of the - architrave. From this, the relation between the - abacus and architrave, and how much the former - exceeds or projects out beyond the latter, will be - better understood than by the engraving at page 14, - where the capital is shown only in _elevation_. - -[Illustration] - - The next figure is still more indispensable - for understanding the conformation of the Ionic - capital. (See page 32.) Here the abacus shows - itself only in front at _f f_, over the - two voluted faces, the rest being concealed by - the baluster sides _b b_ of the capital, - which extend beyond the abacus, and convert the - general plan into more than a square. Although - the channels and other details of the baluster - sides are omitted, and only their general shape - shown, the engraving explains how those sides are - _reduced_ (p. 33) by being hollowed out or - curved concavely on the plan. - -[Illustration] - - In the next, or Corinthian Order, a similar - curvature is given to the abacus itself on all its - four sides; the capital of this Third Order having - that in common with the First one, that it is quite - regular. One great point of difference between - the Doric and Corinthian abacus is, that in the - former the angles are unsupported, and overhang - the circular body of the capital, while in the - Corinthian they are extended outwards diagonally, - as _a a a a_ in the figure, and supported by - the _caulicoli_ or small volutes, which they - in turn serve to cover. The letters _f f f f_ - indicate the rosettes or flowers on the four faces - of the abacus. - -[Illustration] - - ÆSTHETICS—ÆSTHETIC.—A modern architectural writer - condemns these terms as ‘silly and pedantic’ ones - that have ‘lately come into use in the Arts,’ - and as ‘useless additions to the nomenclature’ - and language of art-criticism. In what respect - ‘Æsthetics’ is at all more pedantic than - ‘Optics,’ ‘Mathematics,’ ‘Physics,’ and other - words of a similar class now familiar to English - ears,—although they are all of them essentially - Greek,—or more pedantic than a great many - architectural terms which are not only Greek but - altogether technical, it is not easy to divine; - while as to silliness, there seems to be far - greater silliness in rejecting, or objecting to, - than in adopting terms which are not only highly - expressive and convenient, but have found their way - into every European language, from that of Russia - to that of Spain. - - The term Æsthetics implies the perception and - the study of those qualities which constitute - the beautiful and artistic, and form the finer - essence of all productions of Fine Art. It carries - with it, therefore, a more exact and philosophic - meaning than the word Taste. In its adjective - form, in which it more frequently occurs, it is - particularly useful, as no adequate epithet can - be substituted for ‘Æsthetic.’ Thus we speak of - the ‘æsthetic sense,’ of ‘æsthetic feeling,’ or - ‘study,’ or ‘principles,’ &c.; but we cannot say - the ‘tasteful sense,’ or ‘tasteful study.’ As to - the species of study just alluded to, no term may - be required to designate it, because study of the - kind is generally dispensed with for Architecture, - an historical and technical knowledge of it being - deemed sufficient, without any acquaintance with - those comprehensive _æsthetic_ principles of - the Art which can guide us where technical rules - stop short, and mere rules abandon us to error or - to doubt. - - ANTÆ, Doric, 22. - - ————, Ionic, 40. - - ANTEFIXÆ.—Called by some, _Greek Tiles_,—upright - ornamental blocks placed at intervals on the - cornice along the side of a roof, to conceal - or rather terminate the ridges formed by the - overlapping of the roof tiles. - - ARÆOSTYLE.—The widest mode of intercolumniation, 78. - - ASTRAGAL.—A small convex moulding. The term is applied - chiefly to that which is employed to separate the - capital from the shaft of a column. - - ASTYLAR.—From the Greek privative α, and στύλος - (stylos), a column: columnless or without columns, - a term that expresses the absence of columns or - pilasters, where they might otherwise be supposed - to occur. - - ATTIC.—This is usually defined to be a small Order - placed over a principal one; from which it might - be supposed that it differed from the Orders in - general chiefly by being applied on a smaller - scale; instead of which it has nothing of - columniation and trabeation in it. There is far - greater analogy between an attic and a stylobate, - or continuous pedestal, both of them consisting - of base, a dado or die, and a simple cornice, and - the difference between them consisting chiefly - in their application, the stylobate being below, - and the attic above the Order. Attics are either - plain or pilastered accordingly as the building - itself is astylar or the contrary; but what are - called attic pilasters are no more than slight - _breaks_ or projections on the general surface, - with the mouldings above and below breaking round - them, without any sort of capital, but just after - the manner of pedestals: their faces, however, - are sometimes distinguished from the intermediate - surfaces by being panelled and otherwise enriched, - as is done, for instance, in the façade of the new - Treasury Buildings: another mode of decoration - is to place either a statue, or else a caryatid - figure, before each break in the front of the - Attic, an example of which occurs in the Strand - front of Somerset House. When introduced only over - particular portions of a façade, such as the centre - or extremities, the Attic is an exceedingly useful - element in composition, inasmuch as it serves - not only to give such parts greater importance, - but also to produce play of outline or sky-line; - whereas, if continued throughout, it is apt to - produce heaviness as well as monotony, and some - degree of feebleness of expression also, its - cornice forming, in comparison with the principal - cornice below, but a very insignificant finish to - the general structure. - - AXIS.—An imaginary line through the centre of a column, - &c., or its geometrical representation. Where - different members are placed over each other, so - that the same vertical line, on the elevation, - divides them equally, they are said to be on the - same axis, although they may be on different - planes. Thus, triglyphs and modillions are so - arranged that one coincides with the axis or line - of axis of each column. In like manner, the windows - or other openings in the several stories of a - façade must all be in the same respective axis, - whether they are all of the same breadth or not. - - BALUSTER side of Ionic capital, 33. - - BED-MOULDINGS.—This may be understood as a collective - term for all the mouldings beneath the corona or - principal projecting member of a cornice, which, - without bed-mouldings, would appear too much like a - mere shelf. - - CABLED fluting, 60. - - CAPITAL.—The capitals of the columns constitute the - principal and most obvious indicial mark of the - respective Orders. For those of each of the Three - Classes or Orders a certain character conformably - with the rest of the Order is to be observed; - but that attended to, further restriction is - unnecessary. Between several examples, all - decidedly referable to one and the same Order, - very great special differences occur, and there - might easily be a very great many more. Although - the capital itself is indispensable, it is so only - _æsthetically_, and not out of positive necessity. - The necessity is only artistic: decoration of the - kind there must be, but the express mode of it - is one of those matters which should be left to - design, to which it properly belongs. Capitals are - just as legitimate subjects for the exercise of - taste and invention as any thing else in decorative - design. The capital is only an ornamental head to - the column, and therefore admits of being as freely - designed as any other piece of ornament, on the - conditions of its being accordant in character with - the rest of the Order, and of forming an agreeable - transition from the shaft of the column to the - architrave. - - CARYATIDES.—Anthropostylar pillars or human figures - (usually female ones) employed instead of - columns to support an entablature. Such figures - ought always to be perfectly free from all - _attitudinizing_, and to appear to support their - burden without any effort. Some very matter-of-fact - critics object to caryatides as being at the best - only beautiful absurdities; as if statues so - applied were particularly liable to be mistaken - for living persons subjected to a more severe - punishment than that of being posted up in a niche, - or on the top of a building. - - COLUMNIATION, 68. - - CORINTHIAN, or Third Order, 53; Lysicrates example, 55; - Tivoli, 65; ‘Composite,’ or Ionico-Corinthian, 62. - - CORNICE.—Doric, 21; Ionic, 42; Corinthian, 61. - - CORONA.—That part or member of a cornice which projects - out over and protects the bed-mouldings (see - _Bed-Mouldings_), and throws off the rain from the - rest of the entablature. - - CYMATIUM.—A moulding whose section or profile is convex - below and concave above. See _Mouldings_. - - DADO.—The general plane surface of a pedestal or - stylobate between the upper and lower mouldings. - - DENTELS.—The series of small upright blocks introduced - among the bed-mouldings of a cornice. They are - supposed to be peculiarly characteristic of the - Ionic cornice, but are also employed for the - Corinthian one, beneath the modillions, which - latter are the principal characteristic of the - Corinthian cornice, as dentels alone of the Ionic. - - DIAMETER.—The lower diameter of the column is taken as - the _proportional_ measure for all the other parts - and members of an Order, for which purpose it is - subdivided into 60 parts, called minutes, or into - two _modules_ of 30 minutes each; but the module - is quite an unnecessary distinction, not being, - like the diameter, the constant measure of any - one member of the Order, and the use of it merely - adding to the terms of computation. It is surely - much more simple and convenient to write 1·40′, - meaning 1 diameter and 40 minutes, than 1d. 1m. - 10′. Being proportional measures, diameters and - minutes are not fixed ones, like feet and inches, - but are variable as to the actual dimensions which - they express—larger or smaller, according to the - actual size of the diameter of the column. For - instance, if the diameter be just 5 feet, a minute, - being ¹/₆₀, will be exactly 1 inch; if 2½ feet, the - minute will be half an inch; or if the diameter be - only one foot, the minute is ¹/₆₀ of a foot, or ⅕ - of an inch. - - DIE.—See _Dado_. - - DIMENSIONS.—In architectural description, some positive - dimensions or approximation to them should always - be stated. Such mere epithets as _large_, _lofty_, - _spacious_, &c., mean nothing,—convey only an - exceedingly vague, general idea according to the - particular notions of those who employ them; and, - like all epithets, they are liable to the most - shameful abuse. - - ECHINUS.—A large convex moulding, generally of - elliptical or eccentric contour in the Greek - style, and forming the quarter of a circle in the - Roman. The echinus is the indicial mark of and - constitutes the principal portion of the Doric - capital, the other being the abacus; at least the - term echinus is applied especially to that member - of the capital, although in many Greek examples - its profile has scarcely any convexity, but more - resembles a portion of an inverted cone (18). - In Roman and Modern Architecture the echinus is - usually called the _ovolo_. See _Mouldings_. - - ELEVATION may be defined to be the _upright plan_ of a - building, or any part of a building, showing its - exact form and dimensions as they actually exist; - whereas in perspective the forms are shown not as - they exist, or are in themselves, but merely as - they appear to the eye, according to the station of - the spectator. Elevations are of two kinds, viz. - _geometrical_ and _perspective_. In the former, - the whole is projected upon the same _plane_, the - remote parts are shown of their full size, and - distance can be expressed only by shadow thrown - upon the second plane by parts in the nearest - one; whereas Perspective elevation partakes of - parallel perspective, and the parts beyond the - first plane are shown diminished by distance, and - also come into view, although they may be behind - others on the first plane by which they would be - concealed in a geometrical representation. For - instance, supposing a portico to have a second row - of columns in the same axes as those in front, - that circumstance would not be at all apparent in - a geometrical elevation, but could be understood - only by means of the plan, the inner columns - being concealed by those before them; but in a - perspective elevation they would show themselves, - as would also the ceiling and floor. - - ENTABLATURE.—The horizontal portion of an Order; the - _trabeation_ or system of beams supported by the - columns. There may, however, be entablature without - columns,—where the latter are suppressed, as on the - flanks of an _apteral_ temple; or omitted entirely, - as in _astylar_ building. For the entablatures of - the respective Orders, see pages 18, 41, 60. - - ENTASIS.—A slightly convex curvature given in - execution to the outline of the shaft of a column, - just sufficient to counteract and correct the - appearance, or fancied appearance, of curvature in - a contrary direction (_i. e._ concavely), which - might else take place and cause the middle of the - shaft to appear thinner than it really is. Entasis - is therefore nothing _positive_: it is not intended - to show itself, for were it to do so,—were there to - be any visible swelling,—it would be a deformity; - yet such deformity has been studiously adopted by - many Modern Architects, merely, it would seem, for - the sake of making evident that at all events they - took pains to guard against an imaginary defect. - The subject of entasis has been made one of those - _nugæ difficiles_ which those who can do nothing - else make great parade with. To such, then, be - left all such sublimated transcendental niceties. - If a column only 30 or 40 feet high would appear - thinner in the middle than it really is, unless - there made somewhat thicker than it would be were - its profile a straight line, the same appearance - would take place in any other lofty object, and in - a greater degree in proportion to actual height; so - that a tower of great loftiness, both positively - and proportionally, _ought_—unless entasis were - given it, to look thinner in the middle than at top - and bottom. If such appearance really does take - place, it is one perfectly in accordance with the - laws of vision, therefore no more than a natural - and perfectly proper one. In all such cases the - judgment corrects the eye, and prevents mistakes. - It would, in fact, require a very great stretch of - imagination to fancy what we know to be straight, - and of the same breadth throughout, is not so: - if we can fancy that, we can also fancy that the - further end of a building is not so high as the - nearer one, and that instead of being horizontal, - the cornices slope downwards. So much for the - fuss made about entasis, including that about the - hypothetical curvature in the horizontal lines of - the Parthenon, where curvature was administered, if - administered at all, in an exceedingly homœopathic - ratio. - - EPISTYLIUM.—The architrave or horizontal course resting - immediately upon the columns. Hence we should - denote as _Epistylar Arcuation_ that system in - which columns support arches instead of horizontal - architraves and entablatures. See p. 75. - - EPITITHEDAS.—A term applied by some writers, by way - of distinction, to the cymatium on the sloping - or _raking_ cornices of a pediment, which - _superimposed_ moulding (as its name implies) was - frequently largely developed, and enriched with an - ornamental pattern. - - FENESTRATION, termed by the Germans - _Fenster-architektur_, is, in contradistinction - from columniation, the system of construction and - mode of design marked by windows. Fenestration - and Columniation are so far antagonistic and - irreconcileable, that fenestration either - interferes with the effect aimed at by columniation - with insulated columns, as in a portico or - colonnade, or reduces it, as is the case with an - engaged Order, to something quite secondary and - merely decorative. Astylar and Fenestrated ought, - therefore, to be merely convertible terms; but as - they are not, we may be allowed to invent that of - _columnar-fenestrated_, to denote that mode of - composition which unites fenestration with the - _semblance_, at least, of the other. Employed - as a collective term, Fenestration serves to - express the character of a building or design with - regard to the windows generally: thus we say, the - Fenestration is excellent, or the contrary,—ornate - or meagre,—well arranged or too crowded,—which - last circumstance is a very common fault, and is - destructive both of grandeur and of repose. _Si - quæris exemplum, circumspice._ - - FILLET.—Any narrow flat moulding or surface is so - termed. Fillets are used either to separate or - finish other mouldings. The intervals or spaces - between the flutes on the shaft of a column are - also called fillets, although not actual members, - but merely the surface left between the hollowed - channels or flutes themselves. - - FLUTING.—The collective term for the channels cut on - the shafts of columns. Hitherto this has been - restricted to little more than two modes, viz. with - arrises or sharp ridges, as in the Doric Order - (p. 17), or with fillets. A different mode of - _striating_ the shafts of columns is described at - page 39, and many others might easily be devised. - - FRIEZE.—The middle one of the three divisions of an - entablature. It derives its name from the Italian - _Fregio_, ornament, as being that part of the - entablature especially appropriate for sculptural - embellishment, yet, in contradiction to such - signification, the frieze is all but invariably - made a mere plain surface by Modern Architects; - except the Order employed happens to be Doric, and - then triglyphs are introduced as matter of course, - but the metopes left blank, even though ornateness - is studied in other respects, and in parts not - comprehended in the Order itself. For the Ionic - Order, Modern Architects have sometimes employed - the so-called _pulvinated_ frieze (p. 50), that is, - one whose face is curved convexly; but upon what - principle they have appropriated such form of the - frieze to that Order in particular, when it is just - as suitable for the Corinthian, is not said, and - not to be guessed. - - HYPOTRACHELIUM.—The necking of a capital introduced - between the capital itself and the shaft of the - column. In the Grecian Doric, the hypotrachelium - is little more than nominal, being marked only by - one or more horizontal channels or incisions, and - the flutings continued through them; whereas to the - Modern Doric capital a distinct necking is given - by the astragal which separates the capital from - the shaft, and marks its commencement. But that is - considered an essential part of the capital, and - as to the Corinthian capital it does not admit of - any necking; wherefore the Ionic one possesses a - great advantage over either of them, inasmuch as it - may have a distinct necking or not, and it may be - either plain or enriched. - - INTERCOLUMN and INTERCOLUMNIATION.—The subject of - Intercolumniation is treated of at page 77, - &c. These two terms are generally confounded - together; or rather, the second is very - improperly substituted for the other, contrary - to all analogy of language and distinctness of - meaning. Having only a general collective import, - _Intercolumniation_ can, like _Columniation_, be - used only in the singular. We may say of a portico, - &c., that its intercolumniation is good or poor, - close or straggling, but not that it consists - of so many intercolumniations (according as the - number may be), since such mode of expression is no - better than a solecistical vulgarism. We might just - as well describe a tetrastyle portico as having - four _columniations_, as say that it has three - _intercolumniations_. - - ‘LYSICRATES’ CAPITAL, 55. - - METOPE.—The spaces between the triglyphs of the Doric - frieze, which in the Parthenon, for instance, were - filled in with sculpture; but in modern porticoes - that pique themselves upon being _after the - Parthenon_, they are mere blanks. - - MINUTE.—The sixtieth part of the diameter of the column - as a proportional measure. Minutes are written - thus, 10′, _i. e._ ten minutes. - - MODILLION.—The small bracket-shaped members or - ornaments in the Corinthian cornice are termed - _modillions_. See page 61. - - MODULE.—The semi-diameter of the column, or 30 minutes. - See _Diameter_. - - MOULDINGS.—The principal mouldings and the difference - of their profiles in the Grecian and Roman styles - are here exhibited. - -[Illustration: Greek. Roman. - -Echinus or Ovolo.] - -[Illustration: Cyma Recta.] - -[Illustration: Cyma Reversa.] - -[Illustration: Scotia.] - -[Illustration: Torus.] - - MONOTRIGLYPHIC.—That mode of intercolumniation in the - Doric Order according to which there is only a - single triglyph over each intercolumn, 20. - - MUTULES.—The small blocks or plates attached to the - soffit of the corona in the Doric cornice. - - NECKING.—See _Hypotrachelium_. - - OVOLO.—See _Echinus_. - - PEDESTAL.—No constituent or essential part of an Order, - but merely a casual addition to it, 7. - - PEDIMENT answers to the Gable in Gothic Architecture, - &c., it being the vertical triangular plane at - the end of a roof which slopes downwards on each - side from its ridge. The Pediment differs from the - Gable in having a _tympanum_, or clearly defined - triangular surface with a horizontal cornice below - and two sloping or raking cornices. See page 24. - - PILASTER.—Unknown to Greek Architecture, in which - only antæ (see _Antæ_) were admitted: Pilasters - are employed by the Moderns as substitutes for an - Order in engaged columns, and are, perhaps, even - preferable to the latter, inasmuch as they combine - better and more naturally with the wall to which - they are attached. - - PLAN.—A plan may be familiarly described as an - architectural _map_, or map of a building: - therefore only those who cannot comprehend a - geographical or topographical map—a degree of - obtuseness hardly credible—can be at any loss to - understand an architectural one, the latter being - precisely of the same nature as the others, with - this difference in its favour, that it is much less - conventional. To define it more exactly,—a plan is - a _horizontal section_ supposed to be taken on the - level of the floor through the solid parts of the - fabric—walls, columns, &c., so as to show their - various thicknesses and situations, the dimensions - of the several spaces or rooms, the position of the - doors by which they communicate with each other, - and various particulars that cannot otherwise be - explained. Studying buildings without plans is like - studying geography without maps. Nevertheless, - most persons ignore—affect a genteel ignorance of - such vulgar and technical drawings as plans. Plan - frequently costs the Architect more study than all - the rest of his design. Very much mistaken are they - who suppose that convenience alone has chiefly to - be considered. Convenience is, of course, or ought - to be, made a _sine quâ non_; yet it is not so much - a positive merit in itself, as the want of it - is a positive defect. Mere convenience is not an - artistic quality: from that to beauty of plan,—to - striking combinations, and studied effects, and - varied play of arrangement, the distance is very - great. A common-place plan is but a very dull - uninteresting affair. It is no more than what - any builder can accomplish; but a plan replete - with imagination, piquant play, and well-imagined - contrasts, is no every-day matter. - - PODIUM.—A continued pedestal; a dwarf pedestal wall; - a closed parapet employed instead of an open - balustrade. - - POLYSTYLE.—Having a number of columns. Where columns - occur behind columns, as where a portico has inner - columns, like that of the Royal Exchange, such - portico may be termed _polystyle_. - - PORCH.—Any small portico considerably lower than the - main structure to which it is attached may be so - termed, in contradistinction from one carried up - the height of the building, or as high as the - principal cornice. - - PORTICO.—For the different plans and denominations of - porticoes, see p. 69. - - PROFILE.—The outline of a series of mouldings, or of - any other parts, as shown by a section through them. - - PROPORTION.—The magnitude of one part as compared - with some other. The term ‘proportion’ is used - absolutely in the sense of ‘good proportion;’ - although every thing that has shape has proportions - of some kind or other. The subject of Proportions - has been greatly mystified by writers who have - laid down certain fixed proportions as the best of - all on every occasion, and as the _ne plus ultra_ - of artistic taste. But fixed proportions can be - followed mechanically by every one alike; whereas - it requires ability to deviate successfully from - routine measurement, and apply the _poco piu_ or - the _poco meno_ as the particular occasion or the - particular effect aimed at may require—at least - justify. It is the eye that takes cognizance of - proportions; and the Architect’s own eye ought to - be quite as correct as that of other people. - - PROSTYLE.—A portico which projects from the body of a - building, or the rest of a façade. See page 69. - - PULVINATED.—A frieze whose face is convex instead of - plain is said to be _pulvinated_, from its supposed - resemblance to the side of a cushion, which swells - out when pressed upon. See page 50. - - RAKING CORNICES.—A term, rather unmeaning in itself, - applied to the inclined cornices on the sloping - sides of a pediment. - - RUSTICATION.—Although Rustication is not spoken of - in this treatise, the term is here inserted for - the purpose of remarking that what is so called - might frequently be more correctly described - as _Decorative Masonry_, since, so far from - expressing rudeness or coarseness, it may be made - to display the most studied nicety and elaborate - finish. Rustication, no doubt, originated in a - very rude mode of construction; but what was at - first clumsiness and irregularity, was afterwards - refined into an artful and symmetrical disposition - of the stones and courses of masonry, by a similar - æsthetic process to that which converted the - original amorphous stone pillar into the Doric - column. To call such masonry, as some have done, - only _cicatrizing_ and _gashing_, betrays a loss - for both arguments and words. Decorative masonry - is most assuredly not according to Greek taste - or practice; for the Greeks affected to suppress - the appearance of _articulation_ in masonry, - and thereby to give their buildings, as far as - possible, the look of not being _fabricated_, but - _carved_ out of one block of solid material. Yet it - does not therefore follow that the other mode of - decidedly articulating and pronouncing the joints - and courses of the stones is bad, because it is - an opposite one. So far from being unæsthetic, it - possesses much that recommends it artistically, - for it gives _colour_, and produces richness of - surface where there would else be blankness. A - wall whose face is so decorated forms an admirable - ground to columns or pilasters, which it serves - to relieve very effectively, as is exemplified - in the screen façade of Dover House, that little - architectural gem by Holland, which, though by - no means faultless, has more of genuine artistic - quality than any other building of its time in the - whole Metropolis. - - SECTION.—A vertical plan of the interior of a building, - showing it as it would appear upon an upright plane - _cutting through it_. Though rarely shown, sections - are almost as indispensable as plans, like which, - they show the thicknesses of the walls; and in - addition those of the ceilings and floors; and show - also _heights_, both of the rooms themselves, and - of doors and windows;—moreover, the forms of the - ceilings, whether flat, or coved, or vaulted. In - one respect, too, a section partakes of the nature - of an elevation, the plane parallel to the line - of section being an elevation of the interior, or - rather consisting of as many elevations as there - are separate rooms or divisions. Sections may be - described as either _furnished_ or _unfurnished_; - the former show only construction and the strictly - architectural parts, wherefore, if the side of - a room happens to be quite plain, without door, - chimney-piece, or other feature, that side or - space will be a blank, or little better. Furnished - sections, on the contrary, exhibit, besides what - strictly belongs to the Architecture and its - decoration, mirrors, pictures, statues, furniture, - draperies, and all other accessories. The number - of sections required depends upon the nature - of the plan, and what there is worth showing. - If the design be worthy of it, there should be - as many sections as will suffice to show every - side of every principal apartment; though it may - not be necessary to repeat the entire section - through every floor. Sections are the _deliciæ_ of - architectural illustration, and, it would seem, far - too precious to be frequently exhibited. - - SOFFIT.—From the Italian _soffitto_, a ceiling; the - under surface of any projecting moulding or member. - - STYLE, in the sense of a column (from the Greek στύλος, - a column), enters into a great number of useful - compound terms referring to matters connected - with columniation, and which may here be grouped - together, so that any word ending in ‘style’ may be - found here, though passed over in its alphabetical - order. The number of columns in the front of a - pedimented portico is briefly expressed at once by - any of the following terms: - - Distyle in antis, two columns and two antæ. - Tetrastyle ” four columns. - Hexastyle ” six ” - Octastyle ” eight ” - Decastyle ” ten ” almost the greatest - number that can be placed beneath a pediment. - - As regards Intercolumniation, we - have—Pycnostyle—Eustyle—Aræostyle, 79. - The terms descriptive of the plans and - columniation of ancient temples - are—Prostyle—Amphiprostyle—Peristyle, 69. - Also, - Monoprostyle, a prostyle with _one_ intercolumn on its flanks. - Diprostyle ” ” _two_ ” ” - Triprostyle ” ” _three_ ” ” - To which may be added— - Heterostyle, composed of different Orders, as where one - Order is employed for the centre of a composition, - and another for the wings. - Macrostyle denotes a large Order, that is, one forming - the height of the building. - Microstyle, on the contrary, denotes a lesser Order, - belonging only to some low division of the - building, as for instance, a porch. Thus porticoes - are _macrostylar_, porches _microstylar_. - In Italian composition, microstylar doors and - windows, _i. e._ doors and windows decorated - with small columns, are of frequent occurrence. - - STYLOBATE.—That part of a structure on which an Order - is raised, and on which the columns immediately - stand. The term is, however, restricted to what - partakes of the character of a pedestal, and not - to a mere plinth or socle on the one hand, or to a - lower fenestrated floor on the other. - - VOLUTE.—The characteristic ornaments and indicial marks - of the Ionic capital formed by circumvolving spiral - mouldings are termed volutes. The small circle in - which the spiral or springs terminate is called the - _eye_ of the volute. - -[Illustration] - -Printed by Hughes & Robinson, King’s Head Court, Gough Square. - - ARCHITECTURE OF THE METROPOLIS. - - A New and considerably Enlarged Edition, - with many additional Subjects and Plates. - - It is proposed to publish, in 20 Monthly Parts, - this very important work, to contain 180 plates and - 800 pages of letterpress description of the Public - Buildings of London. Each Part will contain 9 plates - and 40 pages of text, Price 2_s._ 6_d._, to be ready - for delivery on the Magazine day of each month, - beginning with (December 31, 1848) January 1, 1849. - - To the Architect, Builder, the Student in Architecture, - and the Amateur, this desirable work for professional - use and study is offered at an extremely small charge, - and published at such intervals as to be convenient for - all classes, entitled - - ILLUSTRATIONS - OF - THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS OF LONDON: - - Originally edited by the late AUGUSTUS PUGIN, - JOS. GWILT, BRITTON, and others. - - NEWLY EDITED AND ENLARGED BY W. H. LEEDS. - - Manifold as are the publications which represent the - various structures of the metropolis, this is the only - work which describes them, not _ad libitum_, in - views which, even when perfectly correct, show no - more than the general aspect and locality of each - building from a certain point, and consequently afford - no information beyond mere external appearance—but - exhibits them _architecturally_ by means of plans, - elevations, and occasionally both sections and interior - perspective views. Thus a far more complete and correct - knowledge may be obtained of each edifice, in its - entire arrangement in all its parts and dimensions, - than by pictorial views of them. - - As studies for the Architect, the subjects contained - in these volumes strongly recommend themselves,—more - particularly so, as of the majority of them no plans - and elevations are to be met with in any other - publication, which materially enhances the interest - of this collection, and it preserves to us authentic - and tolerably complete records of many buildings - which no longer exist. Among these are CARLTON - HOUSE, illustrated with several plates, including - sections, and a plan of the private apartments; the - late ENGLISH OPERA HOUSE; MR. NASH’S GALLERY, which - has since been dismantled of its embellishments; - THE ROYAL EXCHANGE, and the BOARD OF TRADE. - - Among the new subjects introduced in this new - edition will be found:—The New Plan and Elevation - of the BRITISH MUSEUM—NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—ROYAL - EXCHANGE—ARMY AND NAVY CLUB—NEW CONSERVATIVE - CLUB—REFORM CLUB—MUSEUM OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY—MANSION - OF THE EARL OF ELLESMERE (Bridgewater House); together - with several Plans of Basements, showing kitchens and - domestic offices, and conveniences not hitherto given. - - List of Plates and short abstract of Subjects. - - Adam, R., architect.—All Saints’ Church, Poplar.—All - Souls’ Church, Langham Place.—Ancient - Theatres.—Astley’s Amphitheatre. - - Beazley, S., architect.—Berlin, theatre at.—Bordeaux, - theatre at.—St. Bride’s Church, Fleet Street; - spire, interior, and altar-piece.—Burton, Decimus, - architect. - - Chelsea, church of St. Luke at.—Churches, - remarks on galleries in.—Cockerell, C. R., - architect.—Colosseum.—Covent Garden, St. Paul’s - Church.—Covent Garden Theatre. - - Dimensions of domes.—Diorama.—Domes, table of - dimensions of the principal ones.—Drury Lane - Theatre.—Dunstan’s, St., in the East, tower - of.—Dunstan’s, St., in the West, Fleet Street. - - Elmes, Mr., his plan for improving the area around - St. Paul’s.—English Opera House. - - Gallery, Royal, and staircase, House of - Lords.—George’s, St., in the East.—George’s, St., - Bloomsbury, its steeple.—Gibbs, James, architect. - - Halls, dimensions of.—Hanover Chapel.—Hardwick, - T., architect.—Hawksmoor, Nicholas, - architect.—Haymarket Theatre.—Henry the Seventh’s - Chapel.—Hosking, Mr.—Hope, Mr.—House of Lords, - staircase, and Royal gallery. - - Inwood, Messrs., architects. - - James’s, St., Piccadilly.—James’s, St., - Theatre.—Jones, Inigo, architect. - - Knights Templars.—Knights Hospitallers. - - Law Courts, Westminster.—Lyceum Theatre. - - Mary, St., Woolnoth, church of.—Mary-le-bone - Church, account of.—Mary-le-Bow, St., church, - steeple.—Mikhaelov, architect.—Moller, - architect.—Monuments, at St. Paul’s. - - Nash, J., architect.—Newman, J., architect. - - Opera House, Italian. - - Paul’s, St., Cathedral; description of the former - cathedral; history of the present edifice; - description; compared with St. Peter’s; - monumental sculpture.—Paul’s, St., Covent - Garden.—Peter-le-Poor, St., church of.—Porticoes, - remarks on, by J. B. Papworth.—Pugin, A., - architect. - - Ralph, his opinion on St. Stephen’s, Walbrook; - St. Paul’s, Covent Garden.—Repton, G. S., - architect.—Royal Amphitheatre, Westminster. - - Savage, James, architect; his justification of - the tower of Chelsea Church.—Shaw, J., - architect.—Smirke, Sir R., architect.—Soane, Sir - J., architect.—Spires, remarks on.—Stephen’s, - St., Walbrook. - - Temple Church, history; monuments; - description.—Theatres, remarks on,—Thomond, - architect. - - Walbrook, St. Stephen’s.—Walpole, Horace, his opinion - of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden.—Westminster - Abbey.—Westminster Hall.—Willement, T., painted - window by, in St. Dunstan’s West.—Wilson, E. J., - remarks on spires by; description of Westminster - Hall.—Wren, Sir Christopher.—Wyatt, Benjamin, - architect. - - * * * * * - - Abraham, R., architect.—Adam, Robert, - architect.—Arch, Green Park.—Ashburnham House. - - Bank of England, account of; New Dividend Pay - Office—Basevi, G., architect.—Banqueting - House, Whitehall.—Barry, C., architect.—Barry, - James, painter.—Belgrave Square.—Bethlehem - Hospital.—Blackfriars’ Bridge.—Bonomi, Jos., - architect.—Bridges, London Bridge.—British - Museum, account of; description of the new - building.—Brooks, W., architect.—Burlington - House—Burton, D., architect. - - Carlton Palace.—Chambers, Sir W., architect.—Christ’s - Hospital, new Hall.—Club House, Travellers’.—Club - House, Union.—Club House, University.—Cockerell, - C. R., architect.—College of Physicians, - Warwick Lane.—College of Physicians, Pall Mall - East.—Column, the York.—Corn Exchange.—Cornwall - Terrace.—County Fire Office.—Custom - House.—Cunningham, Allan. - - Dance, Mr., architect.—Dodd, Ralph, engineer. - - Eaton Square. - - Fishmongers’ Hall; former building; new Hall; interior - described.—Freemasons’ Hall. - - Galleries, dimensions of various.—Gandy-Deering, - architect.—George’s, St., Hospital.—George’s, - St., Bloomsbury, portico of.—Grecian architecture, - modern, remarks on.—Greenough’s, Mr., Villa. - - Holkam House.—Holland, H., architect.—Hope’s, - Mr., House.—Horse-Guards.—Hospital, - Bethlehem.—Hospital, St. George’s. - - India House.—Intercolumniation, remark on the term. - - Jones, Inigo.—Jupp, R., architect. - - Kendall, H. E., architect.—Kent, W., - architect.—King’s College. - - Labelye, architect.—Lewis, J. architect.—Libraries, - dimensions of some.—London Institution—London - University.—London Bridge, the old one; the new - one. - - Mansion House.—Mark’s, St., North Audley Street.—Museum, - British.—Museum, Soanean.—Mylne, R., architect. - - Nash, J., architect.—Nash’s, J., House and - Gallery.—National Gallery.—Newgate. - - Palace, Buckingham; interior; sculpture gallery; state - apartments.—Papworth’s remarks on Somerset House; - on English Villas.—Pimlico Institution, portico - of.—Pitts, W., sculpture by.—Ponz, remark by, - on the Royal Exchange.—Portico, St. George’s - Hospital;—National Gallery; London University; - St. Martin’s; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; Carlton - Palace.—Post Office.—Privy Council Office, &c., - account of. - - Ralph, Mr.—Regent’s Park.—Rennie, J., engineer. - —Roberts, H., architect.—Royal Exchange; - destruction of the building by fire.—Russell - Institution. - - Sandby, T., architect.—Saunders, G., architect.—Shaw, - J., architect.—Sion Park Gateway.—Smirke, Sir - Robert, architect.—Smith, G., architect.—Soane, - Sir J., architect, his House and Museum.—Society - of Arts.—Somerset House.—Southwark Bridge. - - Taylor, Sir R., architect.—Telford, Mr., his opinion - of the Mansion House. Temple Bar.—Terraces in - Regent’s Park.—Travellers’ Club House. - - Vardy, Mr., architect.—Vauxhall Bridge.—Villa, Mr. - Burton’s.—Villa, Mr. Greenough’s.—Villa, Mr. Kemp’s. - - Union Club House.—University Club House.—Uxbridge House. - - Walpole, Horace, his character of Lord Burlington: - remark on Burlington House.—Ware, S., - architect.—Waterloo Bridge.—Westminster - Bridge.—Wellington House.—Wilkins, W., - architect.—Wren, Sir C., architect. - - York Column.—York Stairs Water-gate, &c. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK RUDIMENTARY ARCHITECTURE FOR THE THE -USE OF BEGINNERS *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |